From Contrary

So, there are questions I’ve been asking myself about all the numbers – mortality figures – that are being released, as the Editor pointed out the graphs are always misrepresentative. Now as more data is known I’d have expected better analysis and some actual comparative data, again as the Editor has mentioned, on normal mortality – instead, we have seen a ramping up of the fear-inducing hype and more draconian measures from government, but at the same time not seeming too bothered about following good practice to keep mortality to a minimum. Then there is the frankly bizarre detailed reporting on Spain – no explanation or reasons given for why it might be relevant to the uk – why not report on Switzerland? Well Switzerland doesn’t have huge numbers dying – so it wouldn’t cause much panic would it?

The government did not need to impose lockdown – from evidence in other countries the mortality rate doesn’t appear to improve that much, if proper public health measures are taken. So, they appear to be trashing the economy on purpose. I think we all know from the banking crash of 2008 who it is that benefits, and who doesn’t, from an economic crisis.

Anyway, I have read a blog: it analyses the coronavirus epidemic day by day since late March, examining broad information on different countries – most specifically in Italy for a start. One of the main things they are asking is how many EXTRA deaths are there due to the coronavirus? They suggest that there may be few extra deaths actually directly due to the coronavirus. So far, overall mortality figures have shown little change. They compare this to a flu epidemic, not nice, and it does kill the vulnerable, but it is not some unknown nasty plague – it’s a very bad cold (so very infectious, as all colds are) that can cause respiratory problems (as some colds can) and then pneumonia which can lead to death, mainly (almost exclusively?) in people with other serious health conditions. So they ask how many extra deaths from pneumonia are there? – no one knows, this isn’t being recorded. There does seem to be a link with air pollution, so there are localised hot spots (one good thing about the lock down is that air quality is improved drastically).

So this report is suggesting – is the ‘cure’ worse than the disease? That is, have all the distancing measures, isolation, removing health care workers from their jobs, and stress and poverty forced on us by government actually causing more deaths than there would have been? In countries that have had it longer than us – despite the media frenzy and pictures of rows of coffins – the mortality isn’t any greater, and sometimes less, than this time in previous years. I mean, we could all do with lessons in hygiene and having more care for the vulnerable etc, and any epidemic is tragic, but we do have colds and flu every year. It is those countries in which more draconian lockdown measures have been introduced where the health services are overwhelmed.

Here is the link:

Analysis of reporting and comparisons of mortality figure – context.
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

And Today’s report:

“April 2, 2020 (II)
Already in 2018, the Guardian wrote that „Pollution and flu bring steep rise in lung-related illnesses„: Shortage of specialists adds to worries that surge in respiratory diseases is putting pressure on A&Es.
Professor Martin Haditsch, specialist in microbiology, virology and infection epidemiology, sharply criticises the Covid19 measures. These are „completely unfounded“ and would „trample on sound judgment and ethical principles“.

Even representatives of German nursing homes are now complainingabout the restrictive measures and inappropriate media coverage of Covid19.

Figures from the northern Italian city of Treviso (near Venice) show that, despite 108 test-positive deaths by the end of March, overall mortality in municipal hospitals remained roughly the same as in previous years. This is a further indication that the temporarily increased mortality in some places is more likely to be due to external factors such as panic and collapse than due to the coronavirus alone.

Professor John Oxford of Queen Mary University London, one of the world’s leading virologists and influenza specialists, comes to the following conclusion regarding Covid19: „Personally, I would say the best advice is to spend less time watching TV news which is sensational and not very good. Personally, I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the ‘at risk’ groups viz over 65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic!“”

So our panicked media report any death (as with Eddie Little) as being WITH the coronavirus, even if it was heart failure that was the cause of death – the 18 year old that died ‘with no underlying ailments’ except the undiagnosed leukaemia. With the change in reporting criteria – the Scottish government meekly going with the flow here – means that all deaths that have even a hint of coronavirus about them will be added to the statistics. What if, say, hospitals were allowed to function as normal – that is with all the usual protections in place, that is, no one with the cold would be working with vulnerable patients anyway – would they not be better able to cope? And without others panic buying unnecessary food and medicine,,, etc. I mean, physical distancing, hand washing etc are good – why go scaring and panicking people, closing down businesses etc when some proportionate restrictions might have been adequate?

Pigeon poo, anyone?