Retired pro Andrew Talansky under fire for Covid rant (Pogačar + De Gendt join in); Pidcock’s Pinarello; CyclingMikey road.cc Podcast; Barriers to disabled cyclists; Trek raises $1.8M for World Bicycle Relief; Wheelbarrow fun + more on the live blog

173 thoughts on “Retired pro Andrew Talansky under fire for Covid rant (Pogačar + De Gendt join in); Pidcock’s Pinarello; CyclingMikey road.cc Podcast; Barriers to disabled cyclists; Trek raises $1.8M for World Bicycle Relief; Wheelbarrow fun + more on the live blog”

1. He’s half right and half

   He’s half right and half wrong, if you eat well, (vit D, zinc, less chance of diabetes) exercise (so your bmi is good, and heart is strong), and get outdoors, fresh air (less chance of lung problems) you will probably be fine and if everyone did this we’d be in a much better position. But half wrong as it does exist and there are a lot of older people out there with comorbidities that may die from covid, and vaccines have helped a lot (1/20,000-30,000 chance of heart issues after vaccination is it though? From Scandinavian county data) so on balance he’s more dangerous to be saying it in the way he’s saying it.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I wouldn’t say that the ratio

     I wouldn’t say that the ratio of general good health advice to wooooo bullsh*t here is half and half……

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’d say he is partially
     I’d say he is partially correct too. My YouTube doctor did a video yesterday (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw) which showed very few people with no co-morbidity have died of COVID, but I thought that is very well established. One other thing he did claim was that of the people who died with no co-morbidity, their average age was 82.5 (Ie higher than the average life expectancy in the UK).

     So I’d like to see exactly how many people under 40 have died of COVID with no co-morbidity and with a BMI below 25 – I don’t believe that data set exists.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Garage at Large wrote:

       One other thing he did claim was that of the people who died with no co-morbidity, their average age was 82.5 (Ie higher than the average life expectancy in the UK).

       — Garage at Large

       That, however, shows a real misunderstanding of how life expectancy works.  Yes, if you live to 82, you have exceeded the average life expectancy in the UK.  But that doesn’t mean you are likely to die any moment; the average life expectancy of someone who has reached 82 is another 8 years.  That will include people who have a co-morbidity – so it you reach 82 with no co-morbidity you can expect to live a good while longer. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I didn’t state what age that
         I didn’t state what age that 82.5 year old could live to, my point was that of that was the average age of death for people with no co-morbidity, there clearly cannot be many people under 40 dying with no comorbidities… For example, if someone aged 30 died of COVID with no comorbidities, if would require approx 7 people aged 90 to die of COVID with no co-morbidities to average back to the mean of 82.5.

         Unless the guy had the figures wrong.

         But that was my point, rather than “those people were going to die imminently anyway”.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Garage at Large wrote:

       I’d say he is partially correct too. My YouTube doctor did a video yesterday (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw) which showed very few people with no co-morbidity have died of COVID, but I thought that is very well established.

       — Garage at Large

       So what? The definition of a Co-morbidity is not ‘something that was about to kill them anyway’. People with comorbidities who die of covid were still killed by covid.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Wingguy wrote:

         I’d say he is partially correct too. My YouTube doctor did a video yesterday (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw) which showed very few people with no co-morbidity have died of COVID, but I thought that is very well established.

         — Wingguy

         So what? The definition of a Co-morbidity is not ‘something that was about to kill them anyway’. People with comorbidities who die of covid were still killed by covid.— Garage at Large

         perhaps we can remove all the people with  co-morbidities from the heart attack figures or cancer figures. They could be on to something here.

         This person hasn’t died FROM heart disease, they have died WITH heart disease, because they are overweight.

         

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • You’re missing the point –
           You’re missing the point – from the very start of this pandemic they should have locked down vulnerable people (i.e. those with comorbidities) and left everyone else to live their lives until those vulnerable groups were vaccinated.

           Got diabetes? Locked down
           Heart disease? Locked down
           Over 70? Locked down
           You got your BMI from 30 to less than 25? Congrats you’re free.
           Etc.

           In the same YouTube video, Karol Sikora (one of the best known cancer specialists in the world) has estimated 50,000 excess deaths from cancer. If there have been 122,000 excess deaths overall since the start of the pandemic, it’s a very pertinent question to ask how many of that excess weren’t caused by COVID, but by things like untreated conditions. Clearly “deaths within 28 days of diagnosis” in a disease that is prevalent in a large proportion of the population will produce non-zero figures regardless of its fatality rate.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           You’re missing the point – from the very start of this pandemic they should have locked down vulnerable people (i.e. those with comorbidities) and left everyone else to live their lives until those vulnerable groups were vaccinated.

           — Garage at Large

           Sure, because at the start of this pandemic we knew that a vaccine would be developed in record time and we knew it would be effective. Yes, I remember that well!

           Regardless of which, vulnerable people simply cannot be separated from society. They cannot live on their own without contact from anyone. A young colleague of mine died of covid contracted while isolating in his house because someone else in the house brought it home. The far greater infection rates among normal people WOULD lead to greater infection and death rates among vulnerable people if your selfish suggestions were followed.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           You’re missing the point – from the very start of this pandemic they should have locked down vulnerable people

           — Garage at Large

           Ah yes, like they managed succesfully in [checks notes] ah, no country anywhere in the world.

           Remembering that they spectacularly failed to keep it out of nursing homes, despite the residents not leaving, and visitors being banned.

           But you think we could have locked down somewhere approaching half the population, what about people with diabetes or high BMI who live with others?

           It’s total insanity to suggest we could let the virus circulate within half the population while preventing it reaching anyone in the other half. It’s so patently absurd I can only assume anyone suggesting it is being disengenuous, has no interest in protecting the vulnerable and is quite prepared to have a high deathrate among those they consider less at risk than themself.

           It would have been easier to keep the virus out of the country entirely.

         • Well I guess you’ve just

           Well I guess you’ve just provided an argument that lockdowns don’t work. I have some sympathy for that point of view, but of course if lockdowns don’t work for 50% of the population, they don’t work for 100% of the population either where the virus is circulating openly.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Well I guess you’ve just provided an argument that lockdowns don’t work. I have some sympathy for that point of view, but of course if lockdowns don’t work for 50% of the population, they don’t work for 100% of the population either where the virus is circulating openly.

           — Garage at Large

           If your definition of lockdowns ‘working’ is eliminating any spread of the virus whatsoever then sure, UK style lockdowns don’t work. Well done, I’m sure you’re extremely proud of having made such a useful point.

         • Maybe he needs to change his

           Maybe he needs to change his name to Garbage at Large?

         • As a type 1 diabetic could I

           As a type 1 diabetic could I ask that you consider using the term “protected”  or “shielded” rather than “locked down”.  May not seem a big thing but it would emphasise that many of the measures suggested by well informed and unbiased experts and implemented around the world were sacrifices made by the physically strong to protect the physically weak.  I appreciate all have made those sacrifices.

   • check12 wrote:

     He’s half right and half wrong, if you eat well, (vit D, zinc, less chance of diabetes) exercise (so your bmi is good, and heart is strong), and get outdoors, fresh air (less chance of lung problems) you will probably be fine and if everyone did this we’d be in a much better position. But half wrong as it does exist and there are a lot of older people out there with comorbidities that may die from covid, and vaccines have helped a lot (1/20,000-30,000 chance of heart issues after vaccination is it though? From Scandinavian county data) so on balance he’s more dangerous to be saying it in the way he’s saying it.

     — check12

     Fresh air? I’d settle for air that meets legal levels for pollution, but we don’t even get that in the UK (not in cities, anyway).

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • check12 wrote:

     (1/20,000-30,000 chance of heart issues after vaccination is it though? From Scandinavian county data) 

     — check12

     Thats a bit high – the highest risk group (18-29) they have about 29 cases per million (1/33,000)  – other groups down to about half that. (1/60k)

     • Plus much less chance of catching covid
     • Plus much less chance of spreading covid
     • Plus about 50% less chance of getting Long Covid (which will destroy your cycling for months and months)
     • Plus 8 times less likely to need a hospital admission if you catch Covid.

     Sources

     https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered/covid-19-vaccines-and-myocarditis-should-you-be-worried

     https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2

     https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • You’ve taken that across the
       You’ve taken that across the population, but all evidence of heart issues from vaccines suggests skew towards affecting young people more than old.

       Also being fully vaccinated doesn’t stop you catching COVID or passing it on, as bourne out by the fact Australia has had the highest per capita figures for COVID despite being >90% fully vaccinated.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Garage at Large wrote:

         You’ve taken that across the population, but all evidence of heart issues from vaccines suggests skew towards affecting young people more than old. Also being fully vaccinated doesn’t stop you catching COVID or passing it on, as bourne out by the fact Australia has had the highest per capita figures for COVID despite being >90% fully vaccinated.

         — Garage at Large

         Being fully vaccinated (ie including the booster) does reduce the chance of you catching COVID.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • We’ve been here before – by
           We’ve been here before – by fully vaccinated I mean having had 2 doses of the vaccine (which is the official UK government position at this time).

           I also think there is a much larger scope for monoclonal antibodies rather than boosters.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           We’ve been here before – by fully vaccinated I mean having had 2 doses of the vaccine (which is the official UK government position at this time). I also think there is a much larger scope for monoclonal antibodies rather than boosters.

           — Garage at Large

           Yes, we have been here before.  And again, you just pretend like the whole booster programme hasn’t happened.

         • Omicron protection only lasts
           Unfortunately Omicron protection only lasts for a rather short period of time.

           Which renders the whole vaccine passport thing a bit moot.

         • If at all – look at https:/
           If at all – look at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/south-africa-study-shows-boosters-failed-to-block-omicron-bolstering-case-for-face-masks-distancing-and-hand-washing-11642693727 where a study was complete showing no protection.

         • Reading the Lancet link from

           Reading the Lancet link from your link.  There were 7 people’s case history in the study.

           You really are not a very good source on any subject that you post on.

         • Sniffer wrote:

           Reading the Lancet link from your link.  There were 7 people’s case history in the study.

           You really are not a very good source on any subject that you post on.

           — Sniffer

           Cool story – since you read it, how many of that gold-standard “booster” jabbed ultra-protected cohort caught Omicron?

           Yep, all seven. 100%. ?

           And yet some folks will say how being vaxxed and boosted up to the eyeballs protects society. I’d argue the opposite – boosters provide a false sense of security and risk compensation will mean COVID spreads more – not less – in a fully vaccinated society.

           I mean, imagine if 20% of people popped their clogs from COVID. The streets would be deserted, martial law would be self-imposed.

           By getting vaccinated and making COVID less dangerous you’re inadvertently contributing to its spread.

         • Your comments here expose
           Your comments here expose that you do not have a fundamental understanding of statistics. You are misrepresenting data. You should stop.

         • Actually I have an excellent
           Actually I have an excellent understanding of statistics, having studied econometrics and general statistics throughout my Cambridge university economics degree. What are your qualifications?

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Actually I have an excellent understanding of statistics, having studied econometrics and general statistics throughout my Cambridge university economics degree. What are your qualifications?

           — Garage at Large

           Cool! What college did you read at and when did you matriculate? I did a few stats as part of my NatSci @Fitz, but mainly the maths we did was the tough stuff linked to quantum mechanics.

         • Never been to Fitz although I
           Never been to Fitz although I did have a tutor from Churchill – it’s a bit of a hike isn’t it?! I went to one in the middle, not giving you any more information as it’s very small and you might be able to work out who I am, lol

         • Tit Hall?

           Tit Hall?

         • Very droll, but unfortunately
           Very droll, but unfortunately not

         • Not trying to be funny, in my

           Not trying to be funny, in my time there that was the only central college that would ever describe themselves as small. All the others seemed to boast about who was biggest, oldest, richest etc.

           Except Sidney Sussex.

         • Peterhouse is tiny in terms

           Peterhouse is tiny in terms of student numbers, and Mr Garbage certainly displays some of the nastier traits associated with Peterhouse men.

         • Anglia Ruskin is also in

           Anglia Ruskin is also in Cambridge…

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Peterhouse is tiny in terms of student numbers, and Mr Garbage certainly displays some of the nastier traits associated with Peterhouse men.

           — Rendel Harris

           There is the possibility that their mendacity stretches to humble brag college dropping in a vain attempt to impress

         • More likely work out who you

           More likely work out who you are not.

         • I would stop bother replying

           I would stop bother replying before he boasts about his degrees and his Reflected-Sounds-of-Underground-Spirts by referring you to the totally wrong page number in a report like usual.

     • Unfortunately Omicron has
       Unfortunately Omicron has changed everything and rendered all that information obsolete.

       We know that vaccines don’t provide lasting protection against symptomatic Omicron infection. We don’t know the implications of this for long COVID, hospitalisation or contagion.

       Some of that data will be available soon but given that Omicron is apparently milder than Delta the absolute risk reduction is likely to be far smaller than it was with Delta even if the vaccines were equally efficacious.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         We know that vaccines don’t provide lasting protection against symptomatic Omicron infection

         — Rich_cb

         No, we know that vaccines developed for the original variant don’t provide lasting protection against Omicron. We don’t know whether vaccines developed for Omicron (which last I heard we expect to be available in March) will provide lasting protection, but I can see no reason why they wouldn’t.

         (I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, I just felt that needed to be clarified).

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • To clarify further:
           To clarify further:

           We know that no existing available vaccines provide lasting protection against symptomatic Omicron.

           That statement may or may not need updating in the coming months but at present it is correct.

         • I’m not honestly sure we do

           I’m not honestly sure we do know that. There have been small studies showing a drop off in antibody production, but that is only one element of the immune response. Also because only a small percentage of samples worldwide are analysed to establish the variant/ genetics of the virus in a specific patient this cannot be known for certain.

         • UK government regularly puts
           UK government regularly puts out updates on vaccine effectiveness against variants.

           https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-sars-cov-2-variants-technical-briefings#full-publication-update-history

         • That data shows vaccination

           That data shows vaccination status of hospitalised cases. And as I read it, the region with the lowest vaccine uptake (London) had the highest level of hospitalisations, with the excess numbers seeming to consist of unvaccinated people.

           If 90% of the population have had a vaccination and less than 90% of the hospitalisation have had a vaccination then the vaccine is better than no vaccine.

         • SimoninSpalding wrote:

           That data shows vaccination status of hospitalised cases. And as I read it, the region with the lowest vaccine uptake (London) had the highest level of hospitalisations, with the excess numbers seeming to consist of unvaccinated people.

           If 90% of the population have had a vaccination and less than 90% of the hospitalisation have had a vaccination then the vaccine is better than no vaccine.

           — SimoninSpalding

           The specific “Update on hospitalisation and vaccine effectiveness for Omicron” document in rich_cb’s link states this about vaccine efficacy “Combined with the protection against becoming a symptomatic case, this gives a vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation of 88% (78 to 93%) for Omicron after 3 doses of vaccine.”

           It underpins every previous study that vaccinated individuals are signficantly less likely to require hospitalisation that unvaccinated

         • Hospitalisation is a
           Hospitalisation is a different matter altogether.

           The vaccines do appear to confer a greater degree of protection against hospitalisation and death than they do against symptomatic Omicron infection.

           Without significant protection against symptomatic Omicron though the case for vaccine passports or mandates is, IMHO, fatally flawed.

   • I suspect the people who

     I suspect the people who really agree with him look at the data and go “I’m alright Jack, tough luck on anyone more at risk though, it is there own fault for getting cancer, heart disease, old.”

     People don’t look at the vaccine as a team effort which  reduces the chance of you catching it, but can also reduces the chance of passing on a strong dose of Covid to the next person who might not be as fortunate. Lots of right wingers call for herd immunity, but don’t seem to think vaccines are a big point towards this and normality but see it as a Political Conspiracy theory to be used in the fight against the creeping menance of communal responsibility, especially in America. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • You would like to think that

     You would like to think that the public health message is already out there. I certainly know people, that when Johnson went into hospital went “oh shit I need to be more healthy”. Promoting good public health messages with bullshit isn’t the way to go. 

     Perhaps when the next pandemic hits we’ll all be much healthier and we can tackle the problem in other ways (very unlikely ).

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • check12 wrote:

     He’s half right and half wrong, if you eat well, (vit D, zinc, less chance of diabetes) exercise (so your bmi is good, and heart is strong), and get outdoors, fresh air (less chance of lung problems) you will probably be fine and if everyone did this we’d be in a much better position.

     — check12

     Ok cool. So let’s go back to 2015 and warn everyone they’ve got 4 years to lose weight and get healthy before this covid thing hits and we’ll be fine. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Wingguy wrote:

        

       Ok cool. So let’s go back to 2015 and warn everyone they’ve got 4 years to lose weight and get healthy before this covid thing hits and we’ll be fine. 

       — Wingguy

       Still wouldn’t make any difference. Check out the reaction to the climate crisis.  #dontlookup

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • check12 wrote:

     He’s half right and half wrong, if you eat well, (vit D, zinc, less chance of diabetes) exercise (so your bmi is good, and heart is strong), and get outdoors, fresh air (less chance of lung problems) you will probably be fine and if everyone did this we’d be in a much better position. But half wrong as it does exist and there are a lot of older people out there with comorbidities that may die from covid, and vaccines have helped a lot (1/20,000-30,000 chance of heart issues after vaccination is it though? From Scandinavian county data) so on balance he’s more dangerous to be saying it in the way he’s saying it.

     — check12

     He’s pretty much all wrong wrt covid. Saying get fresh air and exercise and eat a healthy diet is universal for all situations, and is kind of stating the bleeding obvious.

     Any individual catching covid pretty much loads their annual chances of dying (regardless of cause) into the fortnight or so that they are ill (scholars of the laws of probability will not need me to state that after you recover, you still have the same residual risk of death from all causes ongoing),. So if the whole population catches it, that year a little less than twice as many people die as you would normally expect. On a social policy level this is catastrophic – our public services (especially but not exclusively health, social, and post-death) barely function under normal load, due to lack of political interest or willful evisceration for short term profit of the few.

     On a human level this is also catastrophic – every death is a tragedy for the family friends and colleagues of the deceased. In addition those (majority) that survive the illness also may suffer long term symptoms – I know several people now suffering long covid to a greater of lesser extent – two of them (who before covid happened to be some of the healthiest people I know) have essentially had their lives torn apart. This has the further knock on to their kids, whose once-active parents are struggling to look after them, and indeed to even earn a living at all. 

     The measures that we have “endured”, (eg making sure we are not infectious before meeting people, getting jabbed, wearing masks in public to reduce the spread of illness to others) might be considered merely “individual responsibility”.

     Interestingly those that bang on about responsibility are often the very people who don’t give a fuck about others that may be affected by their actions (or lack thereof).

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Captain Badger wrote:

       .

       Interestingly those that bang on about responsibility are often the very people who don’t give a fuck about others that may be affected by their actions (or lack thereof).

       — Captain Badger

       probably the same times that want cyclists to wear helmets so they can keep driving like cockwombles.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’ll start by saying im fully

       I’ll start by saying im fully vaccinated, wear a face covering, and enjoy social distancing, but I’m interested in the hive-minds take on this….

       Since the start of registering COVID-19 deaths in 2020 the ONS state there have been around 130,000 excess deaths (over and above the five-year average).  Over this period they’ve registered around 16,000 deaths which list COVID-19 as the sole cause.

       Is in conceivable that of the other 114,000 excess deaths a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment for the other ailments which then go on to result in death which would otherwise have been avoided?

       it is entirely conceivable that the cure (lockdowns & isolation) is resulting in more deaths than it is saving.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I already stated it earlier
         I already stated it earlier on in this thread (50,000 excess cancer deaths estimated by Karol Sikora), but the hive mind just ignored it – if it isn’t on MSM it doesn’t exist to them.

         Also, don’t placate these people by saying you’re fully vaccinated etc, it just shows weakness and a lust for belonging. If you stray outside their comfort zone you’ll be marked as “anti-vax” regardless.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nice talks of hive minds.

         Nice talks of hive minds. Surprised sheeple wasn’t used. Of course nice that you have been vaccinated as there is at least one person on here who has been denigrated people talking about their vaccines since the start of them and, will either confirm that they are not or will not  tell us he is vaccinated. Of course we can all guess the status due to the lack of care they have stated for pensioners and other people deemed “unfit”.

         Anyway, You do realise that due to lack of funding and cuts for the last 10 years of austerity, the NHS just about keeps up with normal national illnesses and still almost breaks during the winter Flu or when a novovirus breaks out. Now add an entirely new disease which is very contagious, kills vulnerable people, fills up wards, fills up ICU’s, and for 12 months, didn’t have a very effective treatment.  It meant that staff had to be brought in from other areas, couldn’t travel other wards and  places needed and ambulances couldn’t just go out straight away as needed disinfecting more then normal. Also add on PTSD for the nhs staff, (I urge people to listen to the Benjamin Zephaniah / Adam Buxton podcast when he discusses his sister and brother in laws experiences, or read any NHS staffs experiences during the worst of it).
         It has been so long that people forget the lockdowns were actually implemented to control infections so the NHS wouldn’t have been so overwhelmed that it fully collapsed. (Protect the NHS was the first slogans used). Yes the government instigated nightingales, however there wouldn’t have been any staff to use them. However such a large effect on the NHS was unfortunately always going to have knock-ons on day-to-day runnings. 

         However your stats do seem to be out. You are claiming only 16k from COVID when official figures from the so far is 153k from COVID. Also the stats listed below seems to show that excess deaths with no covid listed them as lower then average if I’m reading them right. (Probably because the vulnerable have already died earlier with covid). 

         https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/what-has-happened-to-non-covid-mortality-during-the-pandemic

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • The ONS have the number at

           The ONS have the number at 175,000, using the not as easily tallied mention an a death certificate.

       • Smiffi wrote:

         Since the start of registering COVID-19 deaths in 2020 the ONS state there have been around 130,000 excess deaths (over and above the five-year average).  Over this period they’ve registered around 16,000 deaths which list COVID-19 as the sole cause.

         Is in conceivable that of the other 114,000 excess deaths a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment for the other ailments which then go on to result in death which would otherwise have been avoided?

         — Smiffi

         I would have to say that I disagree with your interpretation that only where COVID-19 is the sole cause of death means that the other 114,000 deaths were not caused by covid.

         If a covid infection caused an underlying condition, which is under control in normal cirumstances, to play a part in their death does that mean that their death was caused by Covid or by the underlying condition?  If the condition was under control but the Covid infection caused a flare up and that took the life of the individual common sense has to dictate that Covid was the cause of death not the previously under control condition.

         It is shades of grey in determining cause of death, but covid deaths are only recorded as such where Covid is the primary cause of death

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

           If a covid infection caused an underlying condition, which is under control in normal cirumstances, to play a part in their death does that mean that their death was caused by Covid or by the underlying condition?  If the condition was under control but the Covid infection caused a flare up and that took the life of the individual common sense has to dictate that Covid was the cause of death not the previously under control condition.

           It is shades of grey in determining cause of death, but covid deaths are only recorded as such where Covid is the primary cause of death

           — TriTaxMan

           There’s also the complication that testing for Covid wasn’t available in the early days which would also have affected the figures.

         • I’m not disputing that COVID

           I’m not disputing that COVID was a contributory cause in more than 16,000 deaths, just that it was the only cause in 16,000, nor am I suggesting that funding isn’t an issue, neither did I mention the number of ONS deaths recorded as having COVID on the death certificate. 

           The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  There’s a net loss overall.  It’s also interesting to note that 2021’s COVID only deaths are on a par with 2020’s despite the roll-out of the vaccination programme.

           Vaccines, face coverings, hygiene all have their (positive) place, but lockdown and iosolation I’m not so sure about.

            

         • Smiffi wrote:

           The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  

           — Smiffi

           Not really sure you can say that unless you can produce figures saying how many more people would (or would not) have died of Covid due to the increased spread that would have occurred without lockdowns – figures which would inevitably be speculative.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  

           — Rendel Harris

           Not really sure you can say that unless you can produce figures saying how many more people would (or would not) have died of Covid due to the increased spread that would have occurred without lockdowns – figures which would inevitably be speculative.

           — Smiffi

           Was thinking very much the same.

           The people who obeyed the rules, who wore/wear masks and made sacrifices did it with the best of intentions. Lockdowns have been used worldwide, this is not a tactic used in the UK alone. We can debate the merits of the lockdowns to contain Covid-19 until the cows come home but we will not find any concrete answers or come to meaningful conclusions. Too many ifs, buts and maybes.

           The self-proclaimed wise guys decrying the MSM as a whole and using phrases like “hive mind”, “groupthink” and so on – those people are getting their information (I’m not sure I would call them facts) from often less than reputable sources. The arrogance of thinking one has some kind of superior perspective by not being ‘a sheep’ seems to me to be in fact a sign of weakness, an indication that they have succumbed to a different form of misinformation, possibly even brainswashing. We have seen how the spread of disinformation via social media has had a profound and often detrimental effect on people’s grasp of facts.

           Like virtually everyone, I would prefer that the media was an unbiased source of news and facts but it sadly doesn’t work that way. People who have grown up trusting it don’t want to admit that ‘the press’ and their online counterparts are owned by rich oligarchs and businesses with agendas while the BBC is as vulnerable as any organisation to bias and external pressure. 8 minute video by Peter Jukes of Byline Times trying to shed some light on this:

           https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1481327855954976770

         • Smiffi wrote:

           I’m not disputing that COVID was a contributory cause in more than 16,000 deaths, just that it was the only cause in 16,000, nor am I suggesting that funding isn’t an issue, neither did I mention the number of ONS deaths recorded as having COVID on the death certificate. 

           The stats do however suggest (to me at least) that perhaps, in hindsight, lengthy lockdowns and enforced isolation has, perhaps, resulted in more overall deaths due to the lack of treatment for a whole variety of ailments than have been saved.  There’s a net loss overall.  It’s also interesting to note that 2021’s COVID only deaths are on a par with 2020’s despite the roll-out of the vaccination programme.

           Vaccines, face coverings, hygiene all have their (positive) place, but lockdown and iosolation I’m not so sure about.

           — Smiffi

           To determine whether lockdowns and isolation resulted in more deaths, you need to do more than just assume that non-covid death causes are caused by lockdowns. A better approach would be to compare the excess death rates of countries with and without lockdowns.

           If you want to dive into the figures, there’s a useful repository from the Economist here: https://github.com/TheEconomist/covid-19-excess-deaths-tracker

           Personally, I wouldn’t put much faith into countries’ official figures as most of them will be distorted by politicians and they’ll differ across countries according to differing classifications (and level of testing).

           The analysis is likely to be difficult as different regions have experienced different levels of infection. Also, lockdowns have been used as a result of high virus transmissions, so there is going to be a natural correlation between having a lockdown and high death rates (obviously a country with low infection rates is less likely to require a lockdown).

           It might be of some use to compare the excess death rates of neighbouring countries that took different approaches e.g. Sweden. However you’ll need to take into consideration different population densities.

           To be honest, unless you have many years experience of dealing with statistics, you are likely to mislead yourself and others by over-simplifying a complex topic.

         • The other factor to consider
           The other factor to consider is the excess deaths that are yet to occur because of past lockdowns.

           Late diagnoses will have led to many manageable conditions becoming incurable and therefore fatal.

           That death may not necessarily occur immediately though, it may even be decades later.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The other factor to consider is the excess deaths that are yet to occur because of past lockdowns. Late diagnoses will have led to many manageable conditions becoming incurable and therefore fatal. That death may not necessarily occur immediately though, it may even be decades later.

           — Rich_cb

           Are you also going to factor in the excess deaths that would have occurred if the Delta variant had been allowed to run uncontrolled through an unvaccinated population?

         • Of course.
           Of course.

           Given quite how wrong the Omicron modelling was though I think you’d be advised to take the Delta predictions at the time with a hefty pinch of salt.

       • Smiffi wrote:

         Since the start of registering COVID-19 deaths in 2020 the ONS state there have been around 130,000 excess deaths (over and above the five-year average).  Over this period they’ve registered around 16,000 deaths which list COVID-19 as the sole cause.

         Is in conceivable that of the other 114,000 excess deaths a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment…

         — Smiffi

         No.

         Focusing on COVID-19 as a sole recorded cause of death demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. 

         For a more detailed response and discussion, please learn how death certificates are written, think about why you are wrong, and then please come back.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • It is entirely conceivable
           It is entirely conceivable that “a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment”.

           Before posting snarky replies please read the comment you’re replying to carefully.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It is entirely conceivable that “a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment”. Before posting snarky replies please read the comment you’re replying to carefully.

           — Rich_cb

           It’s also entirely conceivable that new furniture sales have contributed to a higher death rate as the level of VOCs within the home would be massively elevated. It’s just supposition though without some more detailed analysis.

           I think it’s fair enough to dismiss idle speculation (especially if it appears to have an agenda) that’s based on gaps in knowledge.

         • I don’t think it was fair at
           I don’t think it was fair at all.

           Especially as Stomec implied that an understanding of death certificates in some way rendered the question moot.

           It does not.

           During the pandemic we’ve seen a reduction in deaths from many conditions including cancer.

           Lockdowns are not going to have changed the incidence of cancer but they will have reduced/delayed the diagnosis.

           Somebody dying of a cancer that would have been curable if diagnosed/treated earlier may get COVID and have this recorded on their death certificate but their death would have been contributed to by the cancer which, if undiagnosed, would be entirely absent from the death certificate.

           Smiffi has raised a valid point and Stomec has dismissed it without good reason.

         • Smiffi raised some

           Smiffi raised some speculation – whether or not it is valid could be determined with some detailed analysis, but I think it is fair to dismiss it as armchair theorising.

           It’s also possible that lockdown has prevented some cancers due to reduced air pollution and it’s also possible that lockdown has increased cancer due to people drinking more alcohol.

           It’s all just idle speculation which would be fair enough if it didn’t appear as though it had some anti-lockdown agenda behind it. I liken it to opponents complaining that bike lanes cause congestion.

         • It’s not idle speculation as
           It’s not idle speculation as it follows the course of the discussion.

           Based on the links posted so far it’s an entirely reasonable question.

           It’s also entirely reasonable to question whether government policy in imposing lockdowns was correct. I suspect the true answer won’t be known for decades but the picture is certainly not as clear as many think.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           …the picture is certainly not as clear as many think.

           — Rich_cb

           That’s kind of my point.

           And yes, it’s reasonable to examine the efficacy of lockdowns, but not to draw conclusions based on a pair of figures.

         • That’s fair but asking a
           That’s fair but asking a reasonable question supported by the data previously posted in the thread is not drawing conclusions, it’s just adding to the discussion.

         • I’m not a conspiracy theorist

           I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I wasn’t trying to be speculative just to promote an argument (which appears to have happened), and I certainly did not have any hidden agenda!  I was genuinely interested to hear peoples interpretation of the ONS data released last Thursday (from a FOI request from last year) on excess deaths, COVID contributory deaths, and COVID only deaths, both in number and average age. I definitely did not expect any rude replies, but in hindsight perhaps I should have.

           Out of interest I’ve done some more digging, and there’s a wealth of data attached to that particular FOI response which suggests that the media reports are somewhat focussed on a single aspect and perhaps are not reporting on the bigger issue.

           As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  We’ll probably never know whether our, and other countries, courses of action were statistically meaningful, but that should not stop people questioning them.  That’s how science works.  Cults are different, and it seems that just as the anti-vaxxers are gaining a cult following there is a opposite cult forming which is not willing to accept that sometimes we need to review data and then adjust our course. 

         • Quote:

           I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I wasn’t trying to be speculative just to promote an argument (which appears to have happened), and I certainly did not have any hidden agenda!  I was genuinely interested to hear peoples interpretation of the ONS data released last Thursday (from a FOI request from last year) on excess deaths, COVID contributory deaths, and COVID only deaths, both in number and average age. I definitely did not expect any rude replies, but in hindsight perhaps I should have.

           Maybe not start using the term “Hive Mind” for the forum then. People might not be as rude if that isn’t the first thing in your post. 

           As for the FOI, as you made no mention of it in your first post, no link to it or anything else inthat post or subsequentially, and then state you were asking for our opinions of it when there is no such thing. That is quite disingenious. Maybe it was linked in another post, however as there are 128 others on here, it might have been skimmed over. 

           Still I’m sure now stating we are all members of a cult of anti-anti-vaxxers will definitely win people to your side now. 

         • I hadn’t realised that

           I hadn’t realised that HiveMind and Sheeples terms were treated with such disdain. I shall however learn from my mistakes and have put references below.

           Another intriguing stat in the reports is that whilst the average age of those with covid recorded on their death certificate (not just “only” covid) was 82.5,  the average life expectancy of a male in the UK actually fell slightly (by 7 weeks) to 79.0 over the last two years, this is the first decrease since life-expectancy began to be reported (40 years ago).  This means that deaths attributed to causes other than covid have increased in those younger than 79.

           A cause of this increased prevalence in deaths of younger people could be due to less diagnosis and treatment of otherwise treatable illness. It cannot be directly related to covid infection as those deaths averaged higher at 82.5.  I suppose that once the full statistics are produced and analysed we will see what the specific cause(s) were.

           References

           Excess Deaths https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights

           UK Deaths https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

           FOI 2021/3240 Deaths from COVID only https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19withnootherunderlyingcauses?s=09

           Average Life Expectancy https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2018to2020

            

            

         • That’s much better.

           That’s much better.

           And yes, the terms “sheeple” and “hive mind” do tend to be used almost exclusively to provoke emotional responses rather than an open and honest discussion.

         • I suppose it’s much like not

           I suppose it’s much like not realising that some people might not like being referred to as tin foil hatted loon?

         • ktache wrote:

           I suppose it’s much like not realising that some people might not like being referred to as tin foil hatted loon?

           — ktache

           I suppose someone may not realise the implications of the terms, but certainly “sheeple” is always derogatory.

           There’s nothing wrong with tin (ALUMINIUM) foil hats and nuts, though.

           

         • TBF, he didn;’t say sheeple

           TBF, he didn;’t say sheeple initially, I mentioned surprised he didn’t being as he was asking the hive-mind which he did say and I was taking as meaning similar. 

         • Hmmm, I’m probably wrong in

           Hmmm, I’m probably wrong in my assumption that you might be a governor of a school in South East London, but some of your comments do make me wonder. 

           I couldn’t find the average age of death by covid in the reports you linked, however a quick Google search showed an outdated FOI one (middle of the last big deaths peak of Jan 2021) which shows that male deaths mean average was 78.6 years and Median was 81. As this is about the time the time the Life expectancy figues were calculated for, I will use these. 

           But again, your intepretation does have something to desire. 75k deaths will always sway something taken over several years even though they do those calculations over the period to try to level off excesses, not to the extent that it happened.

           Also Staticians notes.

           “These estimates rely on the assumption that current levels of mortality, which are unusually high, will continue for the rest of someone’s life. Once the coronavirus pandemic has ended and its consequences for future mortality are known, it is possible that life expectancy will return to an improving trend in the future.”

            

         • Smiffi wrote:

           I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I wasn’t trying to be speculative just to promote an argument (which appears to have happened), and I certainly did not have any hidden agenda!  I was genuinely interested to hear peoples interpretation of the ONS data released last Thursday (from a FOI request from last year) on excess deaths, COVID contributory deaths, and COVID only deaths, both in number and average age. I definitely did not expect any rude replies, but in hindsight perhaps I should have.

           Out of interest I’ve done some more digging, and there’s a wealth of data attached to that particular FOI response which suggests that the media reports are somewhat focussed on a single aspect and perhaps are not reporting on the bigger issue.

           As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  We’ll probably never know whether our, and other countries, courses of action were statistically meaningful, but that should not stop people questioning them.  That’s how science works.  Cults are different, and it seems that just as the anti-vaxxers are gaining a cult following there is a opposite cult forming which is not willing to accept that sometimes we need to review data and then adjust our course. 

           — Smiffi

           If you are as interested in science as you claim, then I’d imagine that you’d provide a source to the FOI response.

           What makes me suspicious is that there are a lot of people who have a financial interest in not having lockdowns, and the fact that you are not linking to your sources makes me question both your methodology and your results.

           I am also puzzled as to why you’d need a FOI request for excess deaths as that data is freely available.

           Personally, it seems reasonable to think that lockdowns should provide some benefit for easily transmissable viruses, but I don’t have any prior belief as to how effective they are although I much prefer the reduced traffic of a lockdown. I’m perfectly happy with peer-reviewed research into lockdowns and unintended consequences, so I’m not sure if you’re using “cults” as some kind of dog whistle.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I don’t think it was fair at all. Especially as Stomec implied that an understanding of death certificates in some way rendered the question moot. It does not. During the pandemic we’ve seen a reduction in deaths from many conditions including cancer. Lockdowns are not going to have changed the incidence of cancer but they will have reduced/delayed the diagnosis. Somebody dying of a cancer that would have been curable if diagnosed/treated earlier may get COVID and have this recorded on their death certificate but their death would have been contributed to by the cancer which, if undiagnosed, would be entirely absent from the death certificate. Smiffi has raised a valid point and Stomec has dismissed it without good reason.

           — Rich_cb

           Ah so many hypotheticals, so little evidence!

           So someone *may* have got cancer. 

           That *may* have been curable

           That *may* have been fatal otherwise

           That *may* not have been recognised by the doctors treating them 

           Said patient *may* have got covid

           That *may* have caused their death

           And this chain for events accounts for a *significant* cause of the excess deaths on the basis that only 16,000 deaths had covid recorded on the death cert?

           With no other supporting evidence?

           As I said before, this just represents a misunderstanding of the death certification process.

           I am sure that some people will have died as a result of missed/delayed treatment during the pandemic. 
            

           This analysis https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/what-has-happened-to-non-covid-mortality-during-the-pandemic puts the apparent (false) reduction in lung cancer deaths at 7% for instance. 

           We can debate about the concept of “significant” and whether 7% is significant or not, but remember the original post contrasted 160,000 excess deaths to 16,00 with only covid listed on the death certificate, which implies Smiffi was thinking closer to 90% rather than 10% in his original post. 
            

           Which again was due to a misunderstanding of how the death certification process works. 

         • They’re not hypotheticals.
           They’re not hypotheticals.

           It’s a fact that 1000s of cancer deaths are missing from the statistics.

           Those deaths must therefore have been recorded under a different category.

           Unless you have another hypothetical explanation?

           I think you’ve misunderstood Smiffis’s post. The answer to his original question is simply Yes.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           They’re not hypotheticals. It’s a fact that 1000s of cancer deaths are missing from the statistics. Those deaths must therefore have been recorded under a different category. Unless you have another hypothetical explanation? I think you’ve misunderstood Smiffis’s post. The answer to his original question is simply Yes.

           — Rich_cb

           I’ve given you a paper showing a 7% effect on lung cancer deaths. 
            

           If you have evidence to show that effect on cancer deaths is significantly more than that then please show it. 

         • Your evidence supports my
           Your evidence supports my statement.

           Over the course of the pandemic there have been thousands of ‘missing’ cancer deaths.

           That’s before we mention the thousands of deaths missing from other causes too.

           All there in your own link.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Your evidence supports my statement. Over the course of the pandemic there have been thousands of ‘missing’ cancer deaths. That’s before we mention the thousands of deaths missing from other causes too. All there in your own link.

           — Rich_cb

           We are debating whether there are enough missing cancer deaths to represent a significant amount of the 110,000 plus reported cases of excess mortality where covid was not the sole cause on the death certificate.

           You have still provided no evidence that supports this assertion.

           I do think that in years to come there will be an increase in cancer mortality due to delayed diagnosis and treatment, but there is a reason cancer survival rates are usually reported as 5 years, 10 years etc and Indo not think we are far enough along yet to see that effect in substantial numbers.

            

            

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           t’s a fact that 1000s of cancer deaths are missing from the statistics. Those deaths must therefore have been recorded under a different category. Unless you have another hypothetical explanation?

           — Rich_cb

           I have a hypothetical explanation, and it is entirely hypothetical, but is it not possible that people suffering from cancer were less likely to die during the pandemic as a result of better air quality and the fact that people with cancer would have been entirely isolated and so not exposed to the risk of various other diseases that frequently kill cancer patients, e.g., pneumonia, which is the primary cause of mortality in 60% of lung cancer patients? I don’t know any data from this country but it’s a fact that during the first three months of lockdown in China pneumonia-related deaths fell by 47%. So perhaps those deaths aren’t recorded elsewhere, they simply didn’t happen.

         • TBH, there are lots of twists

           TBH, there are lots of twists and turns with ongoing diagnostics and it will be a good 5-10 years before all the decisions can definitely be confirmed as correct one way or the other with mortatlities reviewed.

           During lockdown for example, lots of beahaviours were changed including, as you mentioned, lack of polutions in the air and people not being exposed to items at their works. People also changed diets due to lack of normal foods and might have even eaten healthier. But you also have people who missed the daily exercise they might have gotten, or who ate more. More people bought bikes or repaired old ones, but more cyclists also died on the roads in the first lockdown due to combinations of bad driving and new cyclists not realising there is bad driving. 

           I actually expected Heart Attacks and Strokes to be higher, due to people working from home not getting the instant help they might have got if they suffered them in the office. I haven’t seen any stories on that yet, but that could have been tempered by people being less stressed and having less raised BP’s etc by not having to travel  to work for an hour a day in traffic. 

           I do think it is too soon for oncologists, or others to state we will be expecting loads of deaths from particular diseases based on the way people lived before the lockdowns / pandemics when the way they lived during the pandemic has changed. And also when alot of people who would have been more likely to have cancer diagnosed might have actually unfortunately already succumbed to Covid. 

            

         • That is a hypothetical
           That is a hypothetical explanation.

           If it were true we would expect to see an increase in cancer deaths once lockdowns etc eased. We’d also expect to see the same number of cancer diagnoses.

           IIRC the number of cancer diagnoses fell sharply during COVID indicating that the condition was being missed.

           I think the lack of social contact and subsequent reduction in communicable diseases definitely did reduce non COVID deaths though. I think influenza deaths were down dramatically.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           That is a hypothetical explanation. If it were true we would expect to see an increase in cancer deaths once lockdowns etc eased. We’d also expect to see the same number of cancer diagnoses. IIRC the number of cancer diagnoses fell sharply during COVID indicating that the condition was being missed. I think the lack of social contact and subsequent reduction in communicable diseases definitely did reduce non COVID deaths though. I think influenza deaths were down dramatically.

           — Rich_cb

           As I recall, Australia had a markedly reduced flu season (2020 I think) which was attributed to Covid restrictions.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           That is a hypothetical explanation. If it were true we would expect to see an increase in cancer deaths once lockdowns etc eased. We’d also expect to see the same number of cancer diagnoses. IIRC the number of cancer diagnoses fell sharply during COVID indicating that the condition was being missed. I think the lack of social contact and subsequent reduction in communicable diseases definitely did reduce non COVID deaths though. I think influenza deaths were down dramatically.

           — Rich_cb

           Would it be possible (again this is pure hypothesis on my part) that fewer people were identifying signs of cancer in themselves – and so presenting for diagnosis – because of the reduction in infection resulting from circulating less in public? Anecdotally I know three people (all now happily fully recovered, I’m glad to say) who were given cancer diagnoses after presenting with other infections in the relevant organs, perhaps if they hadn’t contracted those infections they wouldn’t have been diagnosed so quickly? Obviously that is not a desirable outcome from an oncology point of view but it may have contributed to the drop in diagnoses?

           I guess it’s no surprise that ‘flu deaths dropped so dramatically because all the most vulnerable were isolating and mandatory masking cut transmission?

         • And the adoption of social

           And the adoption of social distancing, better hygiene and hopefully less determination to have to go to work when having a respiratory disease, be it flu or even a cold.  The ability to work from home, if allowed and possible will also aid this.

         • That’s entirely plausible
           That’s entirely plausible also. We don’t know the exact reasons for the fall in cancer diagnoses but a lot of cancers are diagnosed anecdotally like you describe so a fall in that type of diagnosis would very likely be a contributing factor.

           I think the lack of social mixing and to a lesser extent the masks were definitely the reasons for the drop off in ‘flu.

           Interestingly the last two ‘flu seasons before widespread vaccination saw about 50k deaths per year. The actual annual mortality for 2020 + 2021 is not that unusual compared to just a few decades ago (early 2000s)either.

           Influenza is a nasty disease yet we are all rather blasé about it, wonder how long before COVID is thought of in a similar way?

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           That’s entirely plausible also. We don’t know the exact reasons for the fall in cancer diagnoses but a lot of cancers are diagnosed anecdotally like you describe so a fall in that type of diagnosis would very likely be a contributing factor. I think the lack of social mixing and to a lesser extent the masks were definitely the reasons for the drop off in ‘flu. Interestingly the last two ‘flu seasons before widespread vaccination saw about 50k deaths per year. The actual annual mortality for 2020 + 2021 is not that unusual compared to just a few decades ago (early 2000s)either. Influenza is a nasty disease yet we are all rather blasé about it, wonder how long before COVID is thought of in a similar way?

           — Rich_cb

           but isn’t being obede a comorbidity?  (28% of UK adults)

           what about overweight (further 32% of UK adults)

           at what point does age become a comorbidity?

           diabetes? 7% although likely some overlap with overweight/obese figures

         • I’m kind of hoping that we

           I’m kind of hoping that we start thinking about flu a little bit more like COVID, infection control wise, perhaps lateral flow tests, better hygiene,  a little more isolation and better take up of vaccines.

           Protecting the NHS and not accepting quite as large death toll.

         • I hope presenteeism will take
           I hope presenteeism will take a bit of a knock and people will be more willing to WFH or even, heaven forbid, take time off when unwell.

         • Whilst that is a hope, whilst

           Whilst that is a hope, whilst too many places don’t have a proper sick pay infrastructure (to dissuade absentisim and encourage presenteeism) that will not be the case. My wife uses up some of her prescious few holiday dates to ensure she gets paid when sick for example. 

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I hope presenteeism will take a bit of a knock and people will be more willing to WFH or even, heaven forbid, take time off when unwell.

           — Rich_cb

           That’s easier – and often more affordable – for salaried office workers than those on zero hours at places like Amazon, in frontline NHS services, or working at factories, warehouses etc where any interruption to production lines is costly and hugely disruptive… We already know that empty supermarket shelves are not OK. Social care is pretty bad – sick pay at my other half’s previous employer: 5 days at full pay on £8.90-£9.30/hr then SSP. That won’t pay the bills.

           Still, you’d like to think that the management would learn that it is still better than being forced to close when more than a third of your workforce tests positive (BBC: 2 Sisters Llangefni, July 2020). However, IME senior management are often the least willing to learn and change behaviour, presumably because they’re “in charge” and with that comes the mindset that they know better than everyone else.

           Correction: I originally put £9.80 per hour, which was wrong.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

            

           I guess it’s no surprise that ‘flu deaths dropped so dramatically because all the most vulnerable were isolating and mandatory masking cut transmission?

           — Rendel Harris

           flu infections dropped dramatically as social distancing measures will have that effect on a transmissible virus.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It is entirely conceivable that “a significant proportion have been caused, or at least contributed to, by the reduction in medical treatment”. Before posting snarky replies please read the comment you’re replying to carefully.

           — Rich_cb

           I did, which is why picking the 16,000 cases where covid is listed as the sole cause of death, whilst ignoring the other >150,000 deaths attributed to covid demonstrates as fundamental lack of understanding of the problem. 
            

           Before posting snarky replies please try to think for a second?

            

         • He didn’t ignore the others.
           He didn’t ignore the others.

           Re read his comment. Slowly.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           He didn’t ignore the others. Re read his comment. Slowly.

           — Rich_cb

           Why does he specifically comment that 16000 only mention covid then?

           I suspect you are also unaware of how doctors will in death certificates .

           The fact is that a death cert mentions only COVID-19 as a cause of death means that it has been wrongly completed. 

         • Try reading it one more time.
           Try reading it one more time.

           As I’ve personally written 100s of death certificates I think I have a reasonable grasp of how they work.

           I have also written many death certificates with one cause of death.

           The wording on death certificates makes it quite clear that this is acceptable practice.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Try reading it one more time. As I’ve personally written 100s of death certificates I think I have a reasonable grasp of how they work. I have also written many death certificates with one cause of death. The wording on death certificates makes it quite clear that this is acceptable practice.

           — Rich_cb

           How many times did you write a single cause of death as an infection?  How many times just 1a strep pneumoniae or 1a Hep B with no further qualification?

           If I caught one of my trainees doing that they would be corrected. I’d want to see  eg 1a pneumonia 1b strep pneumoniae as a minimum. 
            

           I accept that post pandemic it is now acceptable to write 1a covid alone but this is a specific directive acknowledging the challenges doctors faced. 
            

           And the majority of hospital death certificates would have more detail eg 1a interstitial pneumonia 1b COVID-19 

           Which is why the focus on the 16000 cases of single covid death certification is fruitless as it fails to acknowledge the majority for certificates where doctors were more accurate. 

         • Even if you wrote 1a
           Even if you wrote 1a interstitial pneumonia, 1b COVID-19 (which I agree is the correct way to do it) that’s still COVID as the single cause of death.

           My interpretation was that no comorbidities meant nothing in section 2.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Even if you wrote 1a interstitial pneumonia, 1b COVID-19 (which I agree is the correct way to do it) that’s still COVID as the single cause of death. My interpretation was that no comorbidities meant nothing in section 2.

           — Rich_cb

           That is not how the data was presented

         • How was it presented? Do you
           How was it presented? Do you have a link?

           I would have thought section 2 yay or nay would be an easy analysis to run and would make sense.

         • Also will argued by
           Also well argued by distinguished oncologists that lockdowns cause more cancer deaths than lives they save, e.g. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.iomcworld.org/articles/lifeyears-and-lockdowns-estimating-the-effects-on-covid19-and-cancer-outcomes-from-the-uks-response-to-the-pandemic.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_1LW328X1AhVGiFwKHYZ2DdcQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2-P_KuriqLhvjJ3qgxNVre

           This kind of conversation doesn’t go down well with the combined brain of the Guardian readership however

2. Road wrote:

   Retired pro Andrew Talansky under fire for Covid rant

   — Road

   Who???

   This is just another nut job in the cacophony. Why echo this particular numbskull’s BS?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Because Jeremy Vine hasnt
     Because Jeremy Vine hasnt posted anything bike related for a while ?

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. People who say “I’m at little

   People who say “I’m at little/no risk from CV19 because I’m young, fit and healthy, so why does anyone else have a problem? I’m not getting vaccinated” don’t seem that far removed from people who drive a big SUV and are actively against any provisions for safe walking and cycling infrastructure.

   Pretty disgusting that anyone would defend such views on this site.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Boopop wrote:

     People who say “I’m at little/no risk from CV19 because I’m young, fit and healthy, so why does anyone else have a problem? I’m not getting vaccinated” don’t seem that far removed from people who drive a big SUV and are actively against any provisions for safe walking and cycling infrastructure…….

     — Boopop

     I wonder whether there’s a correlation….

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I saw an interview where a

       I saw an interview where a person was refusing to have their 15 year old vaccinated as “the only benefit would be to other people, not him”.  My thought was “Why is that a problem?”

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Seventyone wrote:

         I saw an interview where a person was refusing to have their 15 year old vaccinated as “the only benefit would be to other people, not him”.  My thought was “Why is that a problem?”

         — Seventyone

         Nuts isn’t it. That to me would be gravy for getting it done..

         Log In or Register to post comments

4. Talansky has got this cat in

   Talansky has got this cat in a box which he hasn’t looked in or opened…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • NIce try to take this down a

     NIce try to take this down a quantum physics route, but it seems folks are more interested in molecular biology today.

     Log In or Register to post comments

5. I think we can all stop

   I think we can all stop worrying about Covid now – we’re about to all get blown up by Putin shortly 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Gimpl wrote:

     I think we can all stop worrying about Covid now – we’re about to all get blown up by Putin shortly 

     — Gimpl

     The rest of you will. I haven’t been paying any attention to the news about him.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Ahh! The Talansky paradox!

       Ahh! The Talansky paradox!

       Log In or Register to post comments

6. Talanaky: He’s alienated

   Talansky: He’s alienated himself from friends and former teammates such as Phil Gaimon who worked for him as team leader, showing complete and utter disrespect to those that have supported him in the past.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. Don’t respond to his Anti-Vax

   Don’t respond to his Anti-Vax baiting.

   I’d be willing to wager that he hasn’t gone to medical school, hasn’t devoted his career to the study of infections diseases and vaccine reasearch, in the same way that Talansky hasn’t, but somehow his research comes to a different conclusion to the wider medical commuinity.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk

   Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • PRSboy wrote:

     Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

     — PRSboy

     …and grow all their own food too. Or do they trust pesticides and antibiotics used for the farmers’ benefit, but not trust medicines designed for everyone’s benefit?

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • PRSboy wrote:

     Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

     — PRSboy

     Exactly this.

     It’s always great reading about these anti-vaxxers in hospital who won’t take a vaccine but will quite happily be pumped full of Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and Monoclonal antibodies.

     It’s funny they are not concerned that they don’t know what is in those drugs or that monocolonal antibodies are “experimental” in the same way that they said the covid vaccines were and the fact that data for Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is not beneficial at all.

     *Edit*

     It also ties in with what Captain Badger said that the vast majority of anti-vaxxers only care about themselves.

     No one is saying that the vaccines stop infections or that they stop transmission but it has been proved beyond doubt that being vaccinated reduces the severity of the disease in those who catch covid, greatly reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation across the board.

     And I do love how a certain statistical expert is relying on one of the most useless statistics relating to health…… BMI.  It is a guide nothing more.  There are plenty of professional athletes with BMI’s in excess of 30….

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • TriTaxMan wrote:

       …..

       It’s funny they are not concerned that they don’t know what is in those drugs or that monocolonal antibodies are “experimental” in the same way that they said the covid vaccines were and the fact that data for Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is not beneficial at all.

       — TriTaxMan

       As a student I had a summer job in a factory. last Friday of each month the boss would take the workforce out for a slap up pub meal. This particular pub’s chef was from Pakistan, and did the most amazing curries, which all but one of us would tuck into . 

       Our colleague would regard our meals suspiciously, and say “don’t know how you can eat that.”

       “why not, it’s top-notch?”

       “you don’t know what they’ve put in it”

       He would then turn attention to his pukka pie and chips.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Sounds like the colleague is

         Sounds like the colleague is the same one who would casually mention dogs and cats have gone missing around the Chinese Takeaway and other racist junk. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

           Sounds like the colleague is the same one who would casually mention dogs and cats have gone missing around the Chinese Takeaway and other racist junk. 

           — AlsoSomniloquism

           Yeah, it was that knd of thing, with added irony that mass produced meat pies were somehow to be trusted.

           I certainly didn’t let it spoil my Jalfrrezi though. 

       • Or like the gilr i met in

         Or like the girl I met in Kenya who wouldn’t take antimalarials as they were “full of chemicals” but was happy to inhale the products of incomplete combustion of a dried out plant material she had bought off some guy on the street. 

         edited to fix typos

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Seventyone wrote:

           Or like the girl I met in Kenya who wouldn’t take antimalarials as they were “full of chemicals” but was happy to inhale the products of incomplete combustion of a dried out plant material she had bought off some guy on the street. 

           edited to fix typos

           — Seventyone

           yeah, but that’s natchrul…..

         • Seventyone wrote:

           Or like the girl I met in Kenya who wouldn’t take antimalarials as they were “full of chemicals” but was happy to inhale the products of incomplete combustion of a dried out plant material she had bought off some guy on the street. 

           edited to fix typos

           — Seventyone

           But Arnie said, it is not a drug, it is a leaf!

       • Captain Badger wrote:

         He would then turn attention to his pukka pie and chips.

         — Captain Badger

         

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • You leave Pukka pie and chips

         You leave Pukka pie and chips alone!!

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Flintshire Boy wrote:

           You leave Pukka pie and chips alone!!

           — Flintshire Boy

           Certainly will, s’all yours….

     • TriTaxMan wrote:

       It’s always great reading about these anti-vaxxers in hospital cycling who won’t take a vaccine but will quite happily be pumped full of

       — TriTaxMan

       EPO, nandralone, hydroxytetstosterone, insulin, salbutamol…..

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • TriTaxMan wrote:

       ……

       It also ties in with what Captain Badger said that the vast majority of anti-vaxxers only care about themselves.

       No one is saying that the vaccines stop infections or that they stop transmission but it has been proved beyond doubt that being vaccinated reduces the severity of the disease in those who catch covid, greatly reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation across the board.

       And I do love how a certain statistical expert is relying on one of the most useless statistics relating to health…… BMI.  It is a guide nothing more.  There are plenty of professional athletes with BMI’s in excess of 30….

       — TriTaxMan

       I’m not sure that I was quite so categoric.
       To refine the definition discussed with FrankH below, I think there is a distinction between the people who make sh1t up (Andrew Wakefield eg), the people who cynically propagate it for profit (personal or financial, Piers Corbyn, daily heil et Al), and those who fall for it (who I feel some sympathy for – anybody can be wrong given the right circumstances).

       Those in the 3rd category are often (not exclusively) poorly educated, or don’t know how to access or even recognise reliable sources of data, and if they could, rarely have the training to scrutinise it critically.

       In short often the belief is genuine. And if you or I believed that a vaccine was harmful or even just had doubts about its efficacy, may then be reluctant to take it up. There have been cases of medicines causing problems, as we know, or experiments on unwitting subjects taking place. These well publicised cases are clearly contributory to the well established regulation that we enjoy today.
       If you know about it.
       However many in this 3rd category don’t have this depth of knowledge, for a variety of reasons, some of which outside their control.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Wait ’til you find out about

     Wait ’til you find out about anti-vaxxers that take recreational drugs.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • IanMK wrote:

       Wait ’til you find out about anti-vaxxers that take recreational drugs.

       — IanMK

       yeah but as long as you’ve got a good dealer. Y’know, one you can trust……

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • PRSboy wrote:

     Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

     — PRSboy

     First define anti vaxxer.

     Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

     I’m opposed to vaccine mandates. I’ll just fuck off then, shall I?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I doubt many people would

       I doubt many people would offer up 2 as a definition or use it in that way to refer to anti vaccers.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • FrankH wrote:

       ……First define anti vaxxer.

       Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

       I’m opposed to vaccine mandates. I’ll just fuck off then, shall I?

       — FrankH

       That certainly wouldn’t tally with many people’s definition. Cambridge Dictionary’s definition seems more in line with my use of the term at least, and although like you I’m anti-mandate, on this basis I’d echo pRSboy’s exhortation that AVs can indeed fack off

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Captain Badger wrote:

         That certainly wouldn’t tally with many people’s definition. Cambridge Dictionary’s definition seems more in line with my use of the term at least, and although like you I’m anti-mandate, on this basis I’d echo pRSboy’s exhortation that AVs can indeed fack off

         — Captain Badger

         I would concur, it is only the Americanised version of Anti-Vaxxer that adds the vaccine mandate part as described by the American Publisher Mirriam Webster.  The OED also uses the same broad definition  as the Cambridge dictionary

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

           …..

           I would concur, it is only the Americanised version of Anti-Vaxxer that adds the vaccine mandate part as described by the American Publisher Mirriam Webster.  The OED also uses the same broad definition  as the Cambridge dictionary

           — TriTaxMan

           I wonder if it’s from a conscious effort to dilute the stigma attached to being an antivaxxer? I’m not sure whether MW operates a similar model to OED/CD of reporting English as it’s used, or more a regulated model based on how someone wants it to be used.

           Being anti-mandate is a perfectly reasonable position to take (but then I would say that ), one that may be shared by policymakers (and no that fack-wittted  buffoon currently slobbing around downing street cannot in all seriousness be regarded as a policymaker) when considering the most effective management of national emergencies.

            

       • Captain Badger wrote:

         ……First define anti vaxxer.

         Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

         I’m opposed to vaccine mandates. I’ll just fuck off then, shall I?

         — Captain Badger

         That certainly wouldn’t tally with many people’s definition. Cambridge Dictionary’s definition seems more in line with my use of the term at least, and although like you I’m anti-mandate, on this basis I’d echo pRSboy’s exhortation that AVs can indeed fack off

         — FrankH

         Cambridge Dictopnary’s definition would certainly tally with most people’s understanding of the term 2 years ago. But assume I’m against the experimental COVID vaccines. Am I an anti-vaxxer? What if I tell you I had the flu vaccine last year and I just had the shingles vaccine? Am I still an anti-vaxxer?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • FrankH wrote:

           ……Cambridge Dictopnary’s definition would certainly tally with most people’s understanding of the term 2 years ago. But assume I’m against the experimental COVID vaccines. Am I an anti-vaxxer? What if I tell you I had the flu vaccine last year and I just had the shingles vaccine? Am I still an anti-vaxxer?

           — FrankH

           The “experimental” covid vaccines are about as experimental as the annual flu jab.

           I didn’t call you, or imply or even think you were, an Antivaxxer, so I don’t know why you’re asking that question, but I”ll try and play along.

           According to the (reasonable, but not immutable) working definition to which we currently refer, you seem (asfar as I can tell from the data that you have provided) to be perfectly comfortable with the principle of “vaccinating people (= giving them injections to prevent disease)“, and are not one who (as far as I’ve read today) “spreads and encourages opinions against vaccines“. 

           So no.

         • FrankH wrote:

           But assume I’m against the experimental COVID vaccines. Am I an anti-vaxxer? What if I tell you I had the flu vaccine last year and I just had the shingles vaccine? Am I still an anti-vaxxer?

           — FrankHThe Covid-19 vaccines are no more ‘experimental’ than the other flu-type vaccines.

           If you refuse to have any Covid-19 jabs without genuine medical reasons that most doctors would acknowledge then yes, you’re likely to be considered an anti-vaxxer. I know several refuseniks. Despite having more than a year to unearth some real evidence, none of them has managed to offer a compelling reason to refuse vaccination.

           It sounds like you could do with listening to the scientists or reading some of the medical literature instead of getting your Covid-19 vaccine information from David Icke or some shouty fuckwits on Facebook.

           If you live and work alone and rarely mix with other people indoors then I’m sure you (and they) will be fine.

           Like many others, I am against mandating vaccination for NHS staff, social care workers or any other occupation.

         • Simon E wrote:

           Like many others, I am against mandating vaccination for NHS staff, social care workers or any other occupation.

           — Simon E

           I think mandated vaccination is applicable for certain occupations where either an individual will come into close contact with lots of people, or where staff absenteeism can cause an emergency situation (e.g. Mrs HawkinsPeter works at NHS Blood & Transplant – delays with processing blood donations are likely to cause unnecessary deaths).

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           I think mandated vaccination is applicable for certain occupations where either an individual will come into close contact with lots of people, or where staff absenteeism can cause an emergency situation (e.g. Mrs HawkinsPeter works at NHS Blood & Transplant – delays with processing blood donations are likely to cause unnecessary deaths).

           — hawkinspeterI don’t doubt that there should be cases where it needs to be applied with good reason.

           However, a blanket ‘Get jabbed or be fired’ policy across the whole of the NHS and social care sector seems a risky move. It’s politically motivated and provocative. I know anti-vaxxers who have left their jobs in social care for this reason and I’m uncomfortable with the way this sledgehammer is being swung. And if this government of crooks and c**ts can do this with a vaccine (and with the policing bill), what could they get away with next?

         • I do agree with you that it

           I do agree with you that it shouldn’t be used as some kind of political tool though I tend to think that health workers should be vaccinated wherever possible. I’m afraid I don’t feel too much sympathy with anti-vaxxers (the ones that try to persuade others from getting vaccinated) leaving their jobs, but yes I think a blanket policy isn’t really the right move. (As a side note, Mrs HawkinsPeter’s workplace has been very keen on getting all their staff flu jabs in previous years too, so at least they’ve been consistent. I don’t know if it’s mandatory though).

         • I agree with this on lots of
           I agree with this on lots of ways but no one in the medical/healthcare professions seems to mind having compulsory hepatitis vaccines.

     • FrankH wrote:

       Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

       — FrankH

       First define anti vaxxer.

       Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

       I’m opposed to vaccine mandates. I’ll just fuck off then, shall I?

       — PRSboy

       That’s the Joe Biden/democrat definition in Merriam Webster, expect the UK dictionaries to fall into line soon, as they have with other political definitions.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • FrankH wrote:

       First define anti vaxxer.

       Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

       I’m opposed to vaccine mandates. I’ll just fuck off then, shall I?

       — FrankH

       If you go around persuading people to not get vaccinated due to some made up paranoid reason, then yes please.

       However, if you aren’t against vaccines themselves, but just the regulations, then that’s a perfectly reasonable opinion. I don’t think that government mandated vaccines are necessary or desirable, but I have nothing against workplaces insisting on their staff getting vaccinated or following more stringent procedures (c.f. food producers insisting that staff follow minimum food hygiene standards).

       (I’m also opposed to vaccine passports as they discriminate against immuno-compromised individuals and also provides an incentive for people to fake medical records)

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • PRSboy wrote:

     Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

     — PRSboy

     I think they should submit to having their childhood vaccines extracted from them by force then see how they like getting tetanus and lockjaw the next time they get a splinter.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Secret_squirrel wrote:

       …..

       I think they should submit to having their childhood vaccines extracted from them by force ….

       — Secret_squirrel

       Oh gods, I’m imagining some Roald-Dahl-esque method of doing that.

       shudder….

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Doesn’t help matters when
     Doesn’t help matters when Radio 1 (it was on in the car) airs a discussion between an anti-vaxxer (“It’s not been tested and therefore isn’t safe.”) and a Dr (“Yes it is. It’s not a new vaccine, it’s a development of old, tested science”) as if each deserve the same air time. It seems to be increasingly fine to be anti-scientific at the moment; perhaps it’s just people being exhausted by the lockdowns etc and entering the ‘denial’ stage.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • The problem is that censoring
       The problem is that censoring other voices, as YouTube etc did with wildly popular podcaster Joe Rogan and mRNA pioneer Robert Malone, causes a lot of pushback and strengthens some of the anti-vaccination arguments.

       I mean that’s the reason why Rogan is so popular – he has a vast array of different guests and voices on who aren’t necessarily represented (or indeed can be misrepresented) by mainstream media.

       You have to trust others in society to form rational, sound opinions without constantly telling them what to think, and it’s not helping when many so-called scientists are using emotional clarion calls instead of facts.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • So we should trust others in
         So we should trust others in society to form rational, sound opinions independently; reading between the lines I assume you mean by letting them listen to Rogan tell them what to think?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Dogless wrote:

           So we should trust others in society to form rational, sound opinions independently; reading between the lines I assume you mean by letting them listen to Rogan tell them what to think?

           — Dogless

           Yup – it’s “we are not telling people what to think – but those guys are propagandists”. “Vast array of different guests and voices” is maybe a dig at the BBC – for letting Nigel Farage on Question Time so often?

       • Garage at Large wrote:

         I mean that’s the reason why Rogan is so popular – he has a vast array of different guests and voices on who aren’t necessarily represented (or indeed can be misrepresented) by mainstream media.

         — Garage at Large

         Vast numbers of people are grossly misrepresented daily by the MSM; but they are out-groups, not tubthumping ‘successful’ individuals that know how to sound good when they’re given a platform such as Rogan’s podcast.

         The fact that Robert Malone is/was a vaccine scientist doesn’t validate everything he says. How many scientists are saying the opposite? Rogan’s choice to take horse de-wormer as a Covid treatment or cure is an example how poor his own judgement can be. He is not accountable to anyone and I wouldn’t set much store by what he says on any topic.

         Log In or Register to post comments

9. I like Ned Boulting’s tweet 

   I like Ned Boulting’s tweet 

    

    

   (or should I just be ranting about Covid/nuclear war/anti-vaxxers?)

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think just general ranting

     I think just general ranting is the way to go !

     Log In or Register to post comments

10. I don’ t recall, at any point

    I don’ t recall, at any point, the closure of any part of the healthcare network, like pubs, restaurants and nightclubs were, which fits under the definition of lockdown.

    There were necessary infection control measures, which come under basic public health measures, especially given the woeful lack of initial PPE provision, and the overwhelming of the capacity of the NHS, because of COVID, and the people made very ill by it, not lockdown.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. Talking of Mike van Erp (who
    Talking of Mike van Erp (who I see has a spot on the Roadcc podcast, which is fantastic – he has a great face for the spoken medium), Britain’s top selling and award winning newspaper the Daily Mail has a well researched and mostly sympathetic article on the divisive “safety campaigner”. Please see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10428837/Road-safety-hero-menace-two-wheels.html for more.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Thanks for the link. A very

      Thanks for the link. A very interesting read.

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • Garage at Large wrote:

      Talking of Mike van Erp (who I see has a spot on the Roadcc podcast, which is fantastic – he has a great face for the spoken medium), Britain’s top selling and award winning newspaper the Daily Mail has a well researched and mostly sympathetic article on the divisive “safety campaigner”. Please see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10428837/Road-safety-hero-menace-two-wheels.html for more.

      — Garage at Large

      Can you explain what you mean by the two parts I have highlighted in bold?

      One appears to be a personal slight on Mike’s appearance. Is that the best you can do? Pathetic. And so uncool.

      The other suggests that he’s not a safety campaigner (or that what he’s doing is not campaigning for safety). Most people with half a brain would disagree.

      I guess by saying that he is “divisive” you mean that lawbreaking drivers don’t like being caught. Those fuckers need teaching a lesson. I hope every single one of those rulebreakers gets prosecuted. It’s a crying shame that UK roads policing has been shrunk by pressure on successive governments (I remember Blunkett being under pressure as gatsos were torched) and the Tories’ love of ongoing brutal cuts to many public services since 2010.

      More power to Mike and everyone like him!

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Simon E wrote:

        The other suggests that he’s not a safety campaigner (or that what he’s doing is not campaigning for safety). Most people with half a brain would disagree.

        — Simon E

        To pre-empt a potential riposte, I assume you mean

        Most people with more than half a brain would disagree?

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • mdavidford wrote:

          The other suggests that he’s not a safety campaigner (or that what he’s doing is not campaigning for safety). Most people with half a brain would disagree.

          — mdavidford

          To pre-empt a potential riposte, I assume you mean

          Most people with more than half a brain would disagree?

          — Simon E

          More than half a brain possibly, but significantly less than a full brain I’d contend!

          The bits that were highlighted were just lifted from the daily mail and were their quotes – they described him as a “divisive… safety campaigner”. He certainly is divisive, and I think he would describe himself as a safety campaigner. I consider the description controversial which is why I wrapped it in quotes.

          Log In or Register to post comments

        • mdavidford wrote:

          The other suggests that he’s not a safety campaigner (or that what he’s doing is not campaigning for safety). Most people with half a brain would disagree.

          — mdavidford

          To pre-empt a potential riposte, I assume you mean

          Most people with more than half a brain would disagree?

          — Simon E

          most people with at least half a brain?

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • wycombewheeler wrote:

            The other suggests that he’s not a safety campaigner (or that what he’s doing is not campaigning for safety). Most people with half a brain would disagree.

            — wycombewheeler

            To pre-empt a potential riposte, I assume you mean

            Most people with more than half a brain would disagree?

            — mdavidford

            most people with at least half a brain?

            — Simon E

            Possibly. But maybe those with exactly half a brain could go either way. 

      • Well as boo has made some

        Well as boo has made some really vile claims about Mikey and his filming previously, and hinted at them again just the other day, only complaining about his face is a massive step up for him. I suspect he has realised he ran close to what got him banned (sorry, asking the site to remove him) with his comment on the Irish cyclist so can’t make those other hints at the moment. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

12. Also, just to avoid any doubt

    Also, just to avoid any doubt, there is overwhelming evidence in the medical literature that lockdowns are effective in reducing the incidence of covid infections. 
     

    People like to deny this fact, usually for ideological reasons, but it does not change the reality.

    For instance:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7806254/

    https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

     

     

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Well with the current

      Well with the current examples of the behaviours of the illustrious leader during lockdowns, I do wonder if denying lockdowns were ever needed is the new defence. Pretty sure JRM used that line on his Newsnight interview just after stating Scottish Tories are irrelevant. 

      Log In or Register to post comments

13. Any one else wanting to take

    Any one else wanting to take a bucket and sponge with them to clean all those number plates?

    Drivists deliberating avoiding being identified !

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • hirsute wrote:

      Any one else wanting to take a bucket and sponge with them to clean all those number plates?

      Drivists deliberating avoiding being identified !

      — hirsute

      I think this is a charming and helpful proposal but I suspect in many cases the reaction would be “You touch my car, you’ll be eating that sponge and wearing that bucket!”

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. Not just bikes at risk from
    Not just bikes at risk from angle grinders !
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60075415

    Log In or Register to post comments