Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[Bungle73]

Chickens coming home to roost.

Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid​

The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest.
Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are currently dying each week from conditions other than the virus.
The Telegraph understands that the Department of Health has ordered an investigation into the figures amid concern that the deaths are linked to delays to and deferment of treatment for conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.


Over the past two months, the number of excess deaths not from Covid dwarfs the number linked to the virus. It comes amid renewed calls for Covid measures such as compulsory face masks in the winter.
But the figures suggest the country is facing a new silent health crisis linked to the pandemic response rather than to the virus itself.
The British Heart Foundation said it was “deeply concerned” by the findings, while the Stroke Association said it had been anticipating a rise in deaths for a while.
Dr Charles Levinson, the chief executive of Doctorcall, a private GP service, said his company was seeing “far too many” cases of undetected cancers and cardiac problems, as well as “disturbing” numbers of mental health conditions.
“Hundreds and hundreds of people dying every week – what is going on?” he said. “Delays in seeking and receiving healthcare are no doubt the driving force, in my view.[/qoute]

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[yorkie]

Many GPs don't seem to want to see patients any more and patients either no longer feel welcome to visit GPs or (in some cases) have been scared away or it's just been made too difficult for them.

I am no longer proud to say I worked for the NHS. The NHS is an organisation with absolutely disgraceful management at the very top who do not have the best interests of the population at heart and are putting their political leanings first, by concentrating on Covid above everything else, in order to be seen to be making a statement.

Of course many of us predicted that lockdowns, and the NHS refusing to see many patients, would be harmful in the longer term, but the Government caved in to the far-left who demanded lockdowns and harsh restrictions. Those people should now admit "I was wrong"; if they do that, then I have a lot of respect for them. In my opinion anyone who insists that we have taken the right course of action in the past 2.5 years, by imposing lockdowns and closing down the NHS to many people, and much much more, is complicit in the wrongdoing that has occurred and unless/until they admit they got it wrong, they cannot be forgiven.

 

[bramling]

Many GPs don't seem to want to see patients any more and patients either no longer feel welcome to visit GPs or (in some cases) have been scared away or it's just been made too difficult for them.

I visited my GP earlier this week for something minor, first time I've been able to get a face-to-face appointment since early 2020. The place was like a proper ghost town (though I still had to play the "how many milliseconds after 0800 can I get in the phone queue, and I was still seen some 25 minutes after the appointment time). People are clearly staying away, and that's a very poor situation indeed.

I am no longer proud to say I worked for the NHS. The NHS is an organisation with absolutely disgraceful management at the very top who do not have the best interests of the population at heart and are putting their political leanings first, by concentrating on Covid above everything else, in order to be seen to be making a statement.

We certainly need to get away from the idea that the NHS is somehow sacred and beyond scrutiny. I do get the feeling that a lot of people feel rather let down after having "done their bit" to "save the NHS".

Whilst I was in the GP's, a woman turned up looking to book an appointment. The rottweiler on the reception desk duly booked the appointment, several weeks hence. A telephone consultation, of course. Shameful.

 

[Mikw]

Had a vitamin injection this morning and had no problems, the medical staff as great as ever. Nothing wrong with the ones that treat me.

But the system is on it's knees. Receptionists hard to get through to too.

Of course, as bad as the NHS can be now, don't shout too loud for "reform". You'll probably get something more expensive to use and worse.

 

[ExRes]

I'm the proud owner of a nice new text from my GP, it tells me that before I can be given my next repeat prescription I need to go in for a blood test and have my blood pressure taken, my massive excitement at this invitation is slightly clouded by the fact that my post heart attack annual heart checks have been shelved since September 2019 and are not considered a necessity any longer, at least if my heart gives out I'll go knowing how my blood pressure was going on

 

[MikeWM]

For many of us, I fear this is going to be the longest and least satisfying 'told you so' ever

 

[IanXC]

Of course many of us predicted that lockdowns, and the NHS refusing to see many patients, would be harmful in the longer term, but the Government caved in to the far-left who demanded lockdowns and harsh restrictions. Those people should now admit "I was wrong"; if they do that, then I have a lot of respect for them. In my opinion anyone who insists that we have taken the right course of action in the past 2.5 years, by imposing lockdowns and closing down the NHS to many people, and much much more, is complicit in the wrongdoing that has occurred and unless/until they admit they got it wrong, they cannot be forgiven.

The government panicked at the advice they received from government medical and scientific advisors and followed it without considering the wider consequences. A more holistic view was needed. I'm not particularly convinced that this government especially took any regard for what people of other political opinions thought about these topics!

I've long thought that what we needed was the high level restrictions for less time, replaced with the low level restrictions, plus low level restrictions for more of the time we had no restrictions.

 

[brad465]

What I will never understand is how it was possible to get away with so much without publishing a clear cost-benefit analysis of everything we did, while simply asking for such analyses made one a conspiracy theorist.

My opposition to lockdowns and whatnot arose late summer/early autumn 2020, when it was clear that repeated lockdowns wouldn't be sustainable, and enough time had passed to be able to analyse the costs of what had been done. If a cost-benefit analysis had been published that revealed lockdowns were more beneficial than harmful, I'd have supported them. But they only released stats about potential covid deaths and hospitalisations, nothing about potential others deaths the measures would cause, while the fact no CB analysis full stop was released created the impression that those advocating strict measures had something to hide.

 

[furlong]

The question also arises as to what extent the vaccines themselves may now be contributing to the excess by triggering a variety of other conditions, each at a low level so hard to detect individually. (An unreviewed study in the Netherlands is reported to claim a rather high excess of around 1 in 800 per dose in over 60s, by noticing how the shape of the distribution lags behind the shape of the rollout of boosters in different age groups and regions, rather than being independent, which you might expect if restricted access to healthcare was the reason.)

Data doesn't lie: mRNA-vaccines and correlation to all-cause mortality

Marlies Dekkers speaks with with Drs. Robert Malone and Theo Schetters

rwmalonemd.substack.com

Stunning official Canadian data show vaccines now RAISE the risk of death from Covid

Vaccinated people are now more likely to be hospitalized or die from Covid, even after adjusting for fact they're older than the unvaccinated, a…

alexberenson.substack.com

All claims should be treated with caution. Untangling cause and effect will take years.

 

[DustyBin]

The question also arises as to what extent the vaccines themselves may now be contributing to the excess by triggering a variety of other conditions, each at a low level so hard to detect individually. (An unreviewed study in the Netherlands is reported to claim a rather high excess of around 1 in 800 per dose in over 60s, by noticing how the shape of the distribution lags behind the shape of the rollout of boosters in different age groups and regions, rather than being independent, which you might expect if restricted access to healthcare was the reason.)

Data doesn't lie: mRNA-vaccines and correlation to all-cause mortality

Marlies Dekkers speaks with with Drs. Robert Malone and Theo Schetters

rwmalonemd.substack.com

Stunning official Canadian data show vaccines now RAISE the risk of death from Covid

Vaccinated people are now more likely to be hospitalized or die from Covid, even after adjusting for fact they're older than the unvaccinated, a…

alexberenson.substack.com

All claims should be treated with caution. Untangling cause and effect will take years.

Whilst it’s too early to draw any conclusions, I’m not convinced we fully understand the interaction between the virus, the vaccine(s) and the human immune system. The problem is that there are people with fairly extreme views on both sides who really want to proven right and will use, and in some cases manipulate, data to fit their agenda. I think you’re correct; untangling cause and effect will take years.

On a related note, I have a question that I can’t find an answer to. In straightforward terms: Is the immune response in vaccinated individuals the same as that in unvaccinated individuals when faced with natural infection?

There are studies that suggest infection rates are higher in the vaccinated (again, treat with caution) and anecdotally our immunity seems more “robust” than that of our vaccinated friends and family of a similar age. Is it possible that the immune system continues to recognise and attack only the spike protein post-vaccination, and doesn’t actually recognise the whole virus? We know that the spike protein mutates, so this may explain why people suffer repeat symptomatic infections. I can’t find an answer to this, not in terminology I understand anyway.

 

[scarby]

I've long thought that what we needed was the high level restrictions for less time, replaced with the low level restrictions, plus low level restrictions for more of the time we had no restrictions.

As you may well know, that is exactly what Sweden did. Of particular note, which is probably far less well-known, but where it follows the pattern you state, is that Sweden kept those low-level restrictions in the summer and early autumn of 2021, when England has declared "freedom". Physical distancing measures were still in place - I was gently told by staff in a bar in Stockholm in August 2021 that I couldn't simply stand and "mingle", we had to keep to the tables, and I went to an international football match in Stockholm in September 2021 where capacity was restricted with spacing between seats.

Of course Sweden was absolutely vilified in sections of the media and social media for standing firm and not following herd irrationality and hysteria.

 

[MikeWM]

There are studies that suggest infection rates are higher in the vaccinated (again, treat with caution) and anecdotally our immunity seems more “robust” than that of our vaccinated friends and family of a similar age. Is it possible that the immune system continues to recognise and attack only the spike protein post-vaccination, and doesn’t actually recognise the whole virus? We know that the spike protein mutates, so this may explain why people suffer repeat symptomatic infections. I can’t find an answer to this, not in terminology I understand anyway.

That would be the (rather poorly-named) 'original antigenic sin' if it were happening (and note that if it is, these new 'multi-valent' vaccines will offer no improvement whatever *as a booster* over the original Wuhan-strain vaccine).

Anecdotally it does appear to be happening to at least some degree, as you say - the vaccinated appear to be getting reinfections more often. This certainly seems true in the circles of people I know. And there appears to be some evidence in the data for this, though such things are very hard to reliably extract from the rest of the noise. It is hard in particular to weight for the fact that the unvaccinated are probably significantly less likely to be testing themselves at this point or indeed participating in any sort of covid 'surveillance'.

It is unfortunate that the UKHSA stopped producing figures of hospital admissions and deaths by vaccination status back in March, as they were a much better indicatior than self-administered tests, given pretty much everyone is tested on admission to hospital, whether they want to be or not. Presumably this data is still available therefore it could still be published if there was will to do so. One may question why there isn't such will.

One set of data that would be most useful and interesting would be to compare frequency and severity of (re-)infection between those never vaccinated, those who had covid and then were vaccinated later, and those who were vaccinated having never had covid first. That would give us a much better idea of what is going on in this regard. But no-one seems to be conducting that sort of study, unfortunately.

 

[adc82140]

I've read "The Year The World Went Mad" by Prof Mark Woolhouse, a SAGE scientist. He is astounded that all scientific reasoning was abandoned in favour of panic when lockdown was announced. Lockdown was never even remotely modelled for any pandemic. Never mind "following the science". The scientists were following the politics.

 

[Magdalia]

I'm the proud owner of a nice new text from my GP, it tells me that before I can be given my next repeat prescription I need to go in for a blood test and have my blood pressure taken, my massive excitement at this invitation is slightly clouded by the fact that my post heart attack annual heart checks have been shelved since September 2019 and are not considered a necessity any longer, at least if my heart gives out I'll go knowing how my blood pressure was going on

I am in a similar situation. If you have any concerns about your health or your medication, then ask for a phone consultation with your GP before booking the appointment for the tests. In particular, if you have not had an electrocardiogram (ECG) since September 2019, ask for it to be done as part of the same appointment. But please don't ignore the text message, the blood test is important for checking that your medication is working ok.

 

[Jimini]

I've read "The Year The World Went Mad" by Prof Mark Woolhouse, a SAGE scientist. He is astounded that all scientific reasoning was abandoned in favour of panic when lockdown was announced. Lockdown was never even remotely modelled for any pandemic. Never mind "following the science". The scientists were following the politics.

I read that too — money well spent..

..on the book, sadly, not the crippling restrictions..

Would recommend to others as an informative read.

 

[Eyersey468]

What I will never understand is how it was possible to get away with so much without publishing a clear cost-benefit analysis of everything we did, while simply asking for such analyses made one a conspiracy theorist.

My opposition to lockdowns and whatnot arose late summer/early autumn 2020, when it was clear that repeated lockdowns wouldn't be sustainable, and enough time had passed to be able to analyse the costs of what had been done. If a cost-benefit analysis had been published that revealed lockdowns were more beneficial than harmful, I'd have supported them. But they only released stats about potential covid deaths and hospitalisations, nothing about potential others deaths the measures would cause, while the fact no CB analysis full stop was released created the impression that those advocating strict measures had something to hide.

This is one of the criticisms I had, I can sort of understand a cost benefit analysis not being done in March 2020 although I feel one should have been done then, but later restrictions and lockdowns should certainly have had one done.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I've read "The Year The World Went Mad" by Prof Mark Woolhouse, a SAGE scientist. He is astounded that all scientific reasoning was abandoned in favour of panic when lockdown was announced. Lockdown was never even remotely modelled for any pandemic. Never mind "following the science". The scientists were following the politics.

It's nice to hear some dissenting voices from SAGE scientists now they can make some money via book deals. It is just a pity those who disagreed were so silent in public at the time.

 

[adc82140]

It's nice to hear some dissenting voices from SAGE scientists now they can make some money via book deals. It is just a pity those who disagreed were so silent in public at the time.

He addresses that very point in the book. Seems the media only wanted to hear one viewpoint. He is particularly scathing of the BBC.

 

[Razorblades]

It's nice to hear some dissenting voices from SAGE scientists now they can make some money via book deals. It is just a pity those who disagreed were so silent in public at the time.

When did a non-conformist viewpoint ever receive airtime during the past two and a half years? Never; people were de-platformed, struck-off and stifled throughout, if their scientific reasoning or rationale didn't fit with the approved narrative, which quickly took on all the accepted characteristics of propaganda.

The only people allowed airtime 'pushing' an alternative position were painted as ludicrous cranks, as if to discredit any and all dissenters and therefore unworthy of airing their contra views. It's only now that alternative viewpoints are beginning to see anything hinting at breaking cover, or gaining credibility.

 

[Eyersey468]

When did a non-conformist viewpoint ever receive airtime during the past two and a half years? Never; people were de-platformed, struck-off and stifled throughout, if their scientific reasoning or rationale didn't fit with the approved narrative, which quickly took on all the accepted characteristics of propaganda.

The only people allowed airtime 'pushing' an alternative position were painted as ludicrous cranks, as if to discredit any and all dissenters and therefore unworthy of airing their contra views. It's only now that alternative viewpoints are beginning to see anything hinting at breaking cover, or gaining credibility.

I agree, it was disgraceful

 

[Markdvdman]

Well well - vaccines not all they were made out to be!

Well worth a watch and GBNNEWS is not gutless like Sky or BBC!

 

[Razorblades]

Well well - vaccines not all they were made out to be!

Well worth a watch and GBNNEWS is not gutless like Sky or BBC!

At last, the scientific debate is breaking cover.

 

[Stephen42]

Well well - vaccines not all they were made out to be!

Well worth a watch and GBNNEWS is not gutless like Sky or BBC!

I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up with Ofcom too. It's rare for a double blind trial to mention absolute risk reduction as the number is meaningless without context, the relative risk reduction is the one that is applicable outside the trial. Without explaining what relative and absolute risk reduction are or the basis for the absolute risk it's misleading at best. The number exposed to SARS-CoV-2 is unknown so you can't say it with certainty for either figure but far closer to relative rather the absolute risk as claimed.

On a side note they haven't managed to get the calculation for absolute risk reduction right, it looks like they've ignored the difference in size of group and used the wrong population size as well.

 

[Mikw]

I think the bottom line here is that with a something like a pandemic that was out of control, the lockdowns had general concensus of being the best thing to do at the time.

On social media the opponents did come across as cranks at the time as they often mentioned "scamdemic" and often posted untruths from some of the conspiracy site.


The principal of "Household A is infected but Household B isn't - therefore stop them mixing" is scientifically sound.

However, it doesn't really work as key workers had to mix, some others didn't follow the rules at all e.t.c

We also didn't know then what we knew now. so i don't think it's solely a case of one side being "right" and the other being "wrong".

Some parts of both sides are both right, and also wrong at the same time.

Next time it happens i'm sure it'll be different. Lessons will be learnt. And the economy is too fragile to deal with this - and war, and extra trading tariffs all at the same time.

Probably my fantasy this, but i'd also like the current thinking of more day care/less ITU rethought as well. It's almost as if the proponents of that never even considered the possiblity of transmissable pandemic ever occuring again.

 

[bramling]

I think the bottom line here is that with a something like a pandemic that was out of control, the lockdowns had general concensus of being the best thing to do at the time.

On social media the opponents did come across as cranks at the time as they often mentioned "scamdemic" and often posted untruths from some of the conspiracy site.


The principal of "Household A is infected but Household B isn't - therefore stop them mixing" is scientifically sound.

However, it doesn't really work as key workers had to mix, some others didn't follow the rules at all e.t.c

We also didn't know then what we knew now. so i don't think it's solely a case of one side being "right" and the other being "wrong".

Some parts of both sides are both right, and also wrong at the same time.

Next time it happens i'm sure it'll be different. Lessons will be learnt. And the economy is too fragile to deal with this - and war, and extra trading tariffs all at the same time.

Probably my fantasy this, but i'd also like the current thinking of more day care/less ITU rethought as well. It's almost as if the proponents of that never even considered the possiblity of transmissable pandemic ever occuring again.

Where things drifted was going from emergency response in March 2020, to restrictions being allowed to become almost business as usual.

This led many people to feel that the purpose was “to stop me catching Covid”. Even now there’s people who take that view, albeit an ever declining number of people, not least because so many people have now had Covid.

“I don’t want to catch Covid” was reasonable in March 2020, and society bent over backwards to accommodate and achieve this, but it was never a sustainable line that people were going to be able to take in the medium and longer term. We pushed the boat out long enough by waiting for the vulnerable cohorts to be vaccinated, but that point should have been a line in the sand at the very latest.

Now the goalposts seem to have shifted back towards “pressure on the NHS”, but that’s a different issue. The NHS needs to demonstrate what is has done to attempt to address this, and I’m not seeing or hearing much in that respect.

 

[DustyBin]

I think the bottom line here is that with a something like a pandemic that was out of control, the lockdowns had general concensus of being the best thing to do at the time.

On social media the opponents did come across as cranks at the time as they often mentioned "scamdemic" and often posted untruths from some of the conspiracy site.


The principal of "Household A is infected but Household B isn't - therefore stop them mixing" is scientifically sound.

However, it doesn't really work as key workers had to mix, some others didn't follow the rules at all e.t.c

We also didn't know then what we knew now. so i don't think it's solely a case of one side being "right" and the other being "wrong".

Some parts of both sides are both right, and also wrong at the same time.

Next time it happens i'm sure it'll be different. Lessons will be learnt. And the economy is too fragile to deal with this - and war, and extra trading tariffs all at the same time.

Probably my fantasy this, but i'd also like the current thinking of more day care/less ITU rethought as well. It's almost as if the proponents of that never even considered the possiblity of transmissable pandemic ever occuring again.

This all sounds reasonable, however you’ve overlooked one key point; we had a long-standing pandemic response plan yet abandoned it, inexplicably, before it was even implemented. The question is why?

 

[Mikw]

This all sounds reasonable, however you’ve overlooked one key point; we had a long-standing pandemic response plan yet abandoned it, inexplicably, before it was even implemented. The question is why?

That's something i wanted to know also. Presumably incompetence. Or short termism that's come back to bite us.

 

[Eyersey468]

This all sounds reasonable, however you’ve overlooked one key point; we had a long-standing pandemic response plan yet abandoned it, inexplicably, before it was even implemented. The question is why?

Exactly, I doubt we will ever get that answered

I think the bottom line here is that with a something like a pandemic that was out of control, the lockdowns had general concensus of being the best thing to do at the time.

On social media the opponents did come across as cranks at the time as they often mentioned "scamdemic" and often posted untruths from some of the conspiracy site.


The principal of "Household A is infected but Household B isn't - therefore stop them mixing" is scientifically sound.

However, it doesn't really work as key workers had to mix, some others didn't follow the rules at all e.t.c

We also didn't know then what we knew now. so i don't think it's solely a case of one side being "right" and the other being "wrong".

Some parts of both sides are both right, and also wrong at the same time.

Next time it happens i'm sure it'll be different. Lessons will be learnt. And the economy is too fragile to deal with this - and war, and extra trading tariffs all at the same time.

Probably my fantasy this, but i'd also like the current thinking of more day care/less ITU rethought as well. It's almost as if the proponents of that never even considered the possiblity of transmissable pandemic ever occuring again.

To be honest I'm not so sure it will be different the next time there is a pandemic. A lot of the problem was the appalling messaging and anyone who asked perfectly reasonable questions about the official narrative got shot down and vilified for it.

Where things drifted was going from emergency response in March 2020, to restrictions being allowed to become almost business as usual.

This led many people to feel that the purpose was “to stop me catching Covid”. Even now there’s people who take that view, albeit an ever declining number of people, not least because so many people have now had Covid.

“I don’t want to catch Covid” was reasonable in March 2020, and society bent over backwards to accommodate and achieve this, but it was never a sustainable line that people were going to be able to take in the medium and longer term. We pushed the boat out long enough by waiting for the vulnerable cohorts to be vaccinated, but that point should have been a line in the sand at the very latest.

Now the goalposts seem to have shifted back towards “pressure on the NHS”, but that’s a different issue. The NHS needs to demonstrate what is has done to attempt to address this, and I’m not seeing or hearing much in that respect.

Regarding pressure on the NHS, a lot of the problem now is the backlog caused by them suspending treatments for other things to become the National Covid Service

 

[bramling]

Regarding pressure on the NHS, a lot of the problem now is the backlog caused by them suspending treatments for other things to become the National Covid Service

Judging by my GP’s surgery, they still seem to be. The place remains absolutely plastered with Covid signage, including of course about mask wearing still being required, though they don’t seem to be actively enforcing it.

It’s not exactly encouraging to see them still being obsessed with Covid, when really the campaign should now be stuff like “Think you’ve got a lump? Come in and we’ll get it checked out as soon as possible”.

 

[Eyersey468]

Judging by my GP’s surgery, they still seem to be. The place remains absolutely plastered with Covid signage, including of course about mask wearing still being required, though they don’t seem to be actively enforcing it.

It’s not exactly encouraging to see them still being obsessed with Covid, when really the campaign should now be stuff like “Think you’ve got a lump? Come in and we’ll get it checked out as soon as possible”.

I think there's quite a few that are still like that, though I haven't been into my GPs surgery so have no idea if they are as well