Here we go again with the figures....

[Sheepy]

So don't expect the full story to come out until the "emergency" is over and we can then have the public enquiry which will get the truth, then the file will be sealed for 40 years, to protect the guilty.

Exactly, so who but us is there to tell them enough of the cobblers. So I decided Scott and all the others shouldn't be left being voices in the wilderness. But then you knew that because it is all over the internet, maybe you are being spammed. Even though I had to take the pragmatic view of things that the fear was running riot.

[johnofgwent]

Are we saying that the NHS are not honest? Perhaps only this way can the managers justify more cash to fund their inefficiencies. It is a ploy that seems to be working.

It's more a matter of manipulation.


As I've said before, dad died of emphysema and mum died of heart failure.


No. Dad died of prostate cancer that broke off, went through the bloodstream, embedded everywhere including the lungs until he drowned in the fluid they secreted.


Mum died of deliberate dehydration on a euthanasia pathway; it took four times as long as it should have and ten times the dosage of the required drugs. It seems Celtic DNA is just as stubborn as Viking.


I do not believe any of the people involved in documenting the cause of death for their cremations were dishonest, and if I were I could have rained down napalm on those I felt responsible. Having the former head of the Forensic Science service as a CV referee has its advantages.


No, what I am referring to is a degree of error and falsehood that has crept in as a direct result of decisions in government and ministries of propaganda to present figures in a certain way.


When vast numbers of people were heading to hospital to die, the signal to noise ratio in figures presented meant the simplicity of taking the total number of deaths that occurred for any reason with a certain time of a positive test gave a figure that made a certain amount of sense. The errors were not "statistically significant". The numbers were within a standard deviation. Sorry to use techspeak, Borchester might be able to explain it better than I can, he is the maths guy, I was a biologist using the methods.


But as more of the susceptible population either died off or got jabbed, the changes of getting a ride in a hearse if you got the pox dropped and suddenly the method the government used became more and more flawed. So they changed their rules, and thousands of "Covid deaths" became the death from untreated cancer they really were, etc.


I believe the Welsh government deliberately stuck to the flawed measures because they hid the number of people killed by diseases untreated thanks to their insane knee jerk actions such as getting care homes to put do not resuscitate orders in place as a preference to treating the elderly, who the mincing black jerk from penarth later known as "effing gethin" for his zoom call swearing decreed would not survive if they were brought to hospital and caught Covid there so better they die untreated if whatever illness befell them.


It is the lies these politicians peddled that I refer to. I do not believe the NHS front line staff complicit in this at all

[T00ts]

Individual medical staff in the NHS are as honest as anyone. However, the NHS has been steered by government since the start of the crisis. Staff have been disciplined if they spoke against the official guidelines and narrative. I've seen it - I've got emails to prove it.
So don't expect the full story to come out until the "emergency" is over and we can then have the public enquiry which will get the truth, then the file will be sealed for 40 years, to protect the guilty.

I was not referring to front line staff they simply do their jobs within guidelines - t's those who create the guidelines who worry me so much.

[Barry]

Are we saying that the NHS are not honest? Perhaps only this way can the managers justify more cash to fund their inefficiencies. It is a ploy that seems to be working.

Individual medical staff in the NHS are as honest as anyone. However, the NHS has been steered by government since the start of the crisis. Staff have been disciplined if they spoke against the official guidelines and narrative. I've seen it - I've got emails to prove it.
So don't expect the full story to come out until the "emergency" is over and we can then have the public enquiry which will get the truth, then the file will be sealed for 40 years, to protect the guilty.

[T00ts]

Are we saying that the NHS are not honest? Perhaps only this way can the managers justify more cash to fund their inefficiencies. It is a ploy that seems to be working.

[Scott777]

I don't see why there's all this carping over often misunderstood and misread statistics...

Errr, well that's the basis of the 'public health emergency', and therefore the Covid legislation and lockdowns and emergency authorised vaccines.  Take that away, and the lockdowns and vaccinations are illegal.

[Scott777]

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/18/a-doctor-writes-the-nhs-is-concealing-important-information-from-the-public/


If you're not going to read it, don't bother commenting.


But I did read it, and this is what is claimed.


Since June this year, the figures handed out for hospital admissions with COVID have been exaggerated.


On a day taken as an example, the media would have told you a little over five thousand "Covid admissions" occurred, whereas the reality, as revealed in a footnote in a recent dataset is that between three and four thousand of those people were admitted because they had COVID to a degree that required clinical intervention whilst the remainder (some 20-25% of the total) were admitted for treatment of a totally different matter but we're treated for that whilst suffering from the effects of the disease.


To extend the "you were run over by a bus but di d of Covid according to the way the BBC measure things" analogy, we have a documented case on the BBC of a man needing emergency admission to hospital for amputation of his leg after a serious accident where he was trapped between two cars of a tram. The current algorithm driving these figures would report him as a COVID admission if he were to have tested positive for any degree of the illness and thus been required to have the amputation of the keg crushed by the tram in a theatre on the COVID side of the hospital not the NON COVID side.


As the writer states, at one level it matters not, for the man needed the operation, and his having, or not having, the pox would add the burden of his treatment to the problems for one team or other for that day, and had he presented with a leg in tatters and a Covid positive status, he would have been a burden to the hospital's ability to treat COVID positive patients. So as a hospital being asked tomrepirt burdens on treating the pox-afflicted, well, ok


But as the report continues, there is a huge difference and a huge problem. Those being treated for something other than COVID in an isolation environment because they carry the pox and for no other reason are artificially inflating the figures for those crippled by the disease to the point they need intervention, and that makes all the predictions about the number who need hospital intervention to treat the pox a wild overstatement of the problem


It is, as this writer points out, a question of trust

Well, John, it has been claimed for a long time, that it's all exagerated.  You can add to that the high rate of false positives, so people with flu may have been 'covid deaths'.

[johnofgwent]

It doesn't surprise me at all, people ending up in hospital or at the casualty with one problem and something else nasty being found is far more common than most people realise.
(A significant number of cancers are found that way.)

Well, yes, and then, no, not really.


I agree with the point you make.


But that's not exactly got a lot to do with the issue i raised, is it.


The point I was making was that in the exact same way that the NHS said everyone who died of anything within a certain time of giving a positive test died OF Covid even if they were run over by a bus, so the NHS are now saying everyone who is admitted to hospital with signs of COVID are there because they need treatment for the Covid.


And this against a background which I saw for myself and which colleagues also saw, that people admitted for treatment walked out on their own afterwards, instead of being wheeled to ICU and thence to the mortuary ......

[patman post]

Surely one important point of vaccinations is to also help protect those people with pre-existing conditions from contracting Covid and flu from the environment and other people. I see no reason to withhold vaccination (if their condition allows) even if their illness is considered likely to be terminal. 

Just because people have asthma, have cancer, are diabetic, suffer heart problems, etc, it doesn't mean they can't still be leading useful and valuable lives. And even if they're leading ordinary lives just like most of us — I don't see why there's all this carping over often misunderstood and misread statistics...

[Barry]

When they have the public enquiry I suspect that there will be only a few people that died without pre-existing morbidities.
Those will be the "healthy" people where the virus found the morbidity, which the NHS had not.

[papasmurf]

It doesn't surprise me at all, people ending up in hospital or at the casualty with one problem and something else nasty being found is far more common than most people realise.
(A significant number of cancers are found that way.)

[johnofgwent]

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/18/a-doctor-writes-the-nhs-is-concealing-important-information-from-the-public/


If you're not going to read it, don't bother commenting.


But I did read it, and this is what is claimed.


Since June this year, the figures handed out for hospital admissions with COVID have been exaggerated.


On a day taken as an example, the media would have told you a little over five thousand "Covid admissions" occurred, whereas the reality, as revealed in a footnote in a recent dataset is that between three and four thousand of those people were admitted because they had COVID to a degree that required clinical intervention whilst the remainder (some 20-25% of the total) were admitted for treatment of a totally different matter but we're treated for that whilst suffering from the effects of the disease.


To extend the "you were run over by a bus but di d of Covid according to the way the BBC measure things" analogy, we have a documented case on the BBC of a man needing emergency admission to hospital for amputation of his leg after a serious accident where he was trapped between two cars of a tram. The current algorithm driving these figures would report him as a COVID admission if he were to have tested positive for any degree of the illness and thus been required to have the amputation of the keg crushed by the tram in a theatre on the COVID side of the hospital not the NON COVID side.


As the writer states, at one level it matters not, for the man needed the operation, and his having, or not having, the pox would add the burden of his treatment to the problems for one team or other for that day, and had he presented with a leg in tatters and a Covid positive status, he would have been a burden to the hospital's ability to treat COVID positive patients. So as a hospital being asked tomrepirt burdens on treating the pox-afflicted, well, ok


But as the report continues, there is a huge difference and a huge problem. Those being treated for something other than COVID in an isolation environment because they carry the pox and for no other reason are artificially inflating the figures for those crippled by the disease to the point they need intervention, and that makes all the predictions about the number who need hospital intervention to treat the pox a wild overstatement of the problem


It is, as this writer points out, a question of trust