Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News3 mins ago
The Great Barrington Declaration
56 Answers
Seems a fair few medical professionals agree with what I and a few other ABers have been saying for sometime only to be called covidiots by the worshipers of the great covid.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
dannyk, why do you say a u turn? I'm sure a lot of scientists probably already had this opinion, it's just getting more publicity now.
A question that has been asked a lot on here by myself and others, but we never get a satisfactory answer, why is it OK for an excess of upwards of 30,000 people to die from cancer (according to most doctors), because of missed screenings, diagnosis and treatment? These are the people being sacrificed at the alter of Covid, because the NHS has all but shut down for everything else. Covid is a disease that kills people primarily with underlying health conditions, cancer is not so discriminatory.
A question that has been asked a lot on here by myself and others, but we never get a satisfactory answer, why is it OK for an excess of upwards of 30,000 people to die from cancer (according to most doctors), because of missed screenings, diagnosis and treatment? These are the people being sacrificed at the alter of Covid, because the NHS has all but shut down for everything else. Covid is a disease that kills people primarily with underlying health conditions, cancer is not so discriminatory.
I assume that this is it; hard to find a link in the article. https:/
It is not a u-turn, not by medical people anyway. The u turn is the MSM who have constantly not reported what alternative medical people have said.
"Not often that you see three described as "a fair few"."
I see you went to the Abbot school of mathematics. There are far more than three medical professionals, try reading the article properly.
"Not often that you see three described as "a fair few"."
I see you went to the Abbot school of mathematics. There are far more than three medical professionals, try reading the article properly.
"YMB, have you considered whether the process of gaining herd immunity might kill enough people to wreck the economy anyway?"
Yes, and it wont.
To be blunt, and no doubt I will be castigated as a horrible person for saying it, people who die and suffer the worst are medically ill in the first place. The vast majority of people getting it do not suffer major symptoms and some even none at all.
So far from wrecking the economy it could actually save money since you wont have long term treatment which is expensive.
Not that I would consider this a sole reason for going the open route, it is simply to answer your question.
Yes, and it wont.
To be blunt, and no doubt I will be castigated as a horrible person for saying it, people who die and suffer the worst are medically ill in the first place. The vast majority of people getting it do not suffer major symptoms and some even none at all.
So far from wrecking the economy it could actually save money since you wont have long term treatment which is expensive.
Not that I would consider this a sole reason for going the open route, it is simply to answer your question.
Danny, you really need to look outside of the propaganda. Scientists have been saying this sort of thing all through it and you have been told but choose to ignore it as it goes against your covid obsession.
There is no u-turn, the likes of Witless and GSK-Vallance still say the same, these are different ones.
If you can find me one of those names that has been saying something different then please let us know. I did have a cursory glance but couldn't see anything and I'm pretty sure the press would have flagged it up with great delight.
There is no u-turn, the likes of Witless and GSK-Vallance still say the same, these are different ones.
If you can find me one of those names that has been saying something different then please let us know. I did have a cursory glance but couldn't see anything and I'm pretty sure the press would have flagged it up with great delight.
No chance the 'scientists advising the government' are singing from the same hymn sheet due to a modicum of self interest and herd behaviour I suppose.
These scientists weren't drawn towards the shining beacon in the distance but employed by government and, given the shambolic, fragmented garbage that passes for policy coming from our 'leaders' may well have been given parameters to work within, hhews services ditto.
It does all seem to be changing, some might say falling apart.
These scientists weren't drawn towards the shining beacon in the distance but employed by government and, given the shambolic, fragmented garbage that passes for policy coming from our 'leaders' may well have been given parameters to work within, hhews services ditto.
It does all seem to be changing, some might say falling apart.
Herd immunity only works if infection results in long term resistance. It is too early to tell if this is the case.
My own view is that we as a species live beyond our useful span being kept alive by a scientific advances but often at no value to the wider community. As a death fearing society a life at all costs culture means we also have a huge economic burden in caring for those who cannot care for themselves.
Covid by disproportionately being fatal in older individuals with co- morbidities is a possible means of rebalancing this.
We all have older people we care about and the thought of losing them is a horrible thought but it is one of the prices we pay for human intelligence. One of the downsides of our so called civilised society.
On that basis my instinct is to use much stricter criteria for all medical input, not just Covid care. We need to accept people die because ageing makes them more vulnerable as systems fail, that includes the immune system. On this basis hospitals and other services would focus on the provision of services including Covid, for those for whom a good outcome is more likely. The majority could go back to semi normality (but with the demographic of this site, Answerbank may not survive.)
I say this knowing I too would probably be a casualty as well as my mother,my sister and many of my friends. There are too many people on this world the long term Covid may be the best thing not the worst for the human race.
My own view is that we as a species live beyond our useful span being kept alive by a scientific advances but often at no value to the wider community. As a death fearing society a life at all costs culture means we also have a huge economic burden in caring for those who cannot care for themselves.
Covid by disproportionately being fatal in older individuals with co- morbidities is a possible means of rebalancing this.
We all have older people we care about and the thought of losing them is a horrible thought but it is one of the prices we pay for human intelligence. One of the downsides of our so called civilised society.
On that basis my instinct is to use much stricter criteria for all medical input, not just Covid care. We need to accept people die because ageing makes them more vulnerable as systems fail, that includes the immune system. On this basis hospitals and other services would focus on the provision of services including Covid, for those for whom a good outcome is more likely. The majority could go back to semi normality (but with the demographic of this site, Answerbank may not survive.)
I say this knowing I too would probably be a casualty as well as my mother,my sister and many of my friends. There are too many people on this world the long term Covid may be the best thing not the worst for the human race.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.