A Wave Of False Positives

at

Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer for 16 years, says “there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.” asserting that:

“false positive results from inherently unreliable COVID tests are being used to manufacture a second wave based on new cases.”

Dr Yaedon says that half or even “almost all” of tests for COVID are false positives and the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower than previously thought, and may have been reached in many countries already.

Via The American Institute for Economic Research

This video provides one of the most erudite and informative looks at Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. It was remarkable this week to watch as it appeared on YouTube and was forcibly taken down only 2 hours after posting. The copy above is hosted on LBRY, a blockchain video application. In a year of fantastic educational content, this is one of the best we’ve seen.

An Education in Viruses and Public Health, from Michael Yeadon, Former VP of Pfizer (AIER)

Thanks Bob

Meanwhile…


This morning.

UK’s TalkRadio.

A business owner, who has refused to shut up shop during England’s second coronavirus lockdown, saying the rules were a “complete injustice” for small businesses, talks to Mike Graham.

79 thoughts on “A Wave Of False Positives

    1. alickdouglas

      Rhetorical question?

      1474 people in intensive care at peak on 09 November (aka intensive care stretched well beyond capacity)

      1263 during April peak.

    2. Micko

      It’s really odd the way Belgium is getting absolutely smashed by this thing again. Especially since their lockdown was super strict.

      But as I’ve said before, We need to look at here and not everywhere else.

      The “everyone else is doing a lockdown” approach won’t get us out of this. We need actual leadership.

      56% of our deaths didn’t even make it to hospital for Christ’s sake. That’ll tell you what state they were in before Covid.

      Stop comparing countries. We only had 132 people die in ICU with Covid19 since March.

      Again – who doesn’t get brought to ICU or hospital?

      People at the end of their lives.

      1. Cian

        Can you tell us more about the Belgian lockdown? Specifically how it was “super strict” and how it compares to our lockdown.

        Because from what I can see they had very little lockdown from mid-July through to mid-October. When full lockdown kicked in in October/November, it was too late for them.

        1. Micko

          Cian, I would love to from my actual friend who lives in Belgium.

          But, since I got effin destroyed two weeks ago for providing “anecdotal evidence” of something, I am afraid I am only dealing with the facts.

          So, I withdraw my comments about Belgium as they are anecdotal.

          Now, if you’re able, you look at the ACTUAL point of my post which was the fact that we only have 132 dead in ICU and we should look at HOME – not abroad.

          Or you can continue to pick a tiny point in my argument and focusing on that – which is the fuppin MO of most people around here.

          Well…?

          1. Cian

            You replied to george’s post on Belgium.
            You mentioned Belgium.
            I mentioned Belgium

            And now I’m the bad guy? for mentioning Belgium.

          2. Cian

            You want to go off on a tangent to talk about ICU?
            Okay.

            “We only had 132 people die in ICU with Covid19 since March.”
            What is your point? is 132 too many? or too few?

          3. E'Matty

            @ Ciano – ““We only had 132 people die in ICU with Covid19 since March.”
            What is your point?” – Covid is treatable. Why were the other 1,891 people who died “with Covid” not admitted to ICU?

          4. george

            The problem in Belgium was that hospital admissions rose out of control and overwhelmed their system. The admitted people weren’t dying, they were being treated in hospitals but then the hospitals became full and they could no longer provide the care required to the number of patients who required it.

            That is what we need to prevent happening and focusing only on deaths and claiming things are fine is a great way for us to sleepwalk into the same situation. Reducing cases reduces hospital admissions (not the same as ICU), and reduces the risk of ending up airlifting patients out of the country

            On the 23rd September despite Covid-19 cases rising Belgium decided to ease restrictions so not such a mystery. They literally told people they can hug 5 people outside their household every month. Not 5 hugs, 5 people.

          5. Micko

            Cian,

            Alick brought up the ICU’s above – so, not a tangent. Just like Belgium for you! ;)

            Is 132 too few? Hmmm. Well, we had 141 die on the roads last year? I’m still driving – are you? You monsters ;-)

            Anyway, I’m just sayin… we need an appropriate response to this issue lads and to look at home – not abroad, and not at what “might happen”, only what IS happening.

          6. Cian

            @Micko
            How are road deaths equivalent? How many of the 141 that died on the roads last years last year died in ICU?

          7. alickdouglas

            I mentioned ICU in Belgium because it was the response to George’s original question as to why patients were airlifted.

            One of the major issues for Belgium is that there is no agreement as to what is causing the relatively high observed incidence in Belgium vs. other countries in Europe: the incidence peaks match well with the peaks in hospitalisation and death, with believable lags (the peaks are offset by about 10 days), so it looks like a COVID effect rather than other causes. Earlier in the pandemic it was suggested that it was an issue with how cases were diagnosed, but this seems less likely now, rather it appears that Belgium actually does have a higher incidence.

            Perhaps a nitpick, but I don’t believe it’s strictly true to say that the system in Belgium was ‘overwhelmed’: Germany offered aid to the neighboring countries, and the Belgian ICU system took them up on the offer to prevent themselves from becoming overwhelmed. I don’t find numbers, but I hear that survivorship in ICU is significantly better than it was in March, thanks largely due to modifications to treatment protocols and possibly due to different drug regimens.

            Finally, it’s hard to get a handle on the general restrictions in Belgium because many of the measures are determined at a regional and provincial level rather than a federal level. While federal restrictions were softened on the face of it, the regions responded on the same day with more forceful measures that more than compensated for the loosening.

          8. Micko

            How could I know that Cian?

            All i’m saying is one number is bigger than the other. 141 > 132.

            As in 132 people that Doctors thought had a chance at survival and 1891 that they didn’t.

            I don’t know about you, but if a Doctor told me that MY loved one wasn’t going to ICU – i’d be freaking out, contacting newspapers, posting on social media, organising marches and trying to tell anyone who’d listen. Whatever it took!

            But people aren’t, because their loved ones were at the end of their lives. The average age is 81 lads – come on.

            Let’s be grown-ups. We all think this is about people wanting to go back to the pubs, but our medical professionals are already making the decisions who gets the care and who doesn’t – like they always do.

            And we thought the power was in (washing) our hands? Adorable…

          9. E'Matty

            @ Alickdouglas – Alick, can you perhaps give us your insight on the newly developed vaccines and the headlines about a 90,95% etc.. efficacy that everyone is getting very excited about?

            It would appear the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are talking about disease efficacy, and the Astra one is unclear as to whether the efficacy they are speaking of is disease or infection.

            If disease efficacy, does this mean that the vaccines are effective in preventing a person infected with SARS-COVID2 from developing the disease Covid19, whilst infection efficacy would relate to it’s effectiveness in preventing some one from contracting the infection in the first place?

            We already see an 80-90% natural immunity to the disease (i.e. 80+%, though likely a lot higher as we do not have full population testing) of those who contract the virus do not develop symptoms of Covid19). I understand the Pfizer trials did not include over 65s at all (open to correction) or those with underlying conditions, so naturally the higher 90% could simply be matching the natural immune response we might see in such a study group with their age profile and health condition anyway. In other words, the disease efficacy is little better than our natural immunity and so infection is the important efficacy rate to focus on. I have heard the Moderna study did include some over 65s, but don’t think anyone with underlying conditions.

            If the infection efficacy rate of these vaccines turns out to be low, is it the case that they would not actually be nearly as effective in ridding us of the virus in the community, as it would still be spreading, albeit only adversely affecting circa 10% of those who contract it (kind of like now anyway)? Those who cannot get the vaccine would still be at risk of infection, same as now. Isn’t the infection efficacy rate what we really need to see and clearly evidenced too, before people start to see these vaccines as the great panacea to our ills?

          10. Cian

            I still don’t know what road deaths have to do with Covid ICU deaths.

            Yes 141 people died on the road lest year. This is based on hundreds of millions of journeys across the year. The risk (per journey) is tiny. The benefit of driving is positive. Allowing driving provides more benefit than the deaths caused.
            Drink driving (to follow a theme) causes lot of additional deaths/injuries with minimal additional benefit. So drink driving is not allowed.

            ICU isn’t some magical place where anyone can be made better. Some people (be it from an RTA or Covid infection) won’t get better because the go to ICU. Certain treatments are physically tough (e.g. ventilators) and can cause harm to older patients.

            If a 95-year old is badly injured in an RTA they may not be brought to ICU but left in an ordinary bed. If they die, there death is still recorded as an RTA death – even though they didn’t go to ICU.

          11. Micko

            @Cian

            Are you not outraged by the 1886 people that doctors decided shouldn’t receive ICU care?

            What about the 1120 people that were denied hospital care?

            Don’t you care? Why didn’t they get the care they deserved?

            Weren’t they worth saving?

            Are you part of the pro-sickness death crowd now?

            You monster :)

          12. alickdouglas

            Euh, sorry, a response to E’Matty and the question on vaccine efficacy. Won’t get to it tonight, but perhaps I can try to put something into the comments on Tuesday’s papers–presumably it will be relevant there.

          13. Cian

            @Micko

            I don’t know the case history of those people who died with covid.

            But how is it different from influenza? In the 2018/2019 season here there were 13 people that died from flu that weren’t hospitalised. I mean “were denied care”.

            And another 49 that died because the “doctors decided they shouldn’t receive ICU care”.

            And of the 159 people got the ICU care they deserved, 45 of these died.

            Are you outraged? Weren’t they all worth saving?

            Or is it possible that doctors (and patients) make medical decisions with the patients interests at heart. Sometime the (shared) decision is not to get further care.

            source: https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/influenza/seasonalinfluenza/surveillance/influenzasurveillancereports/previousinfluenzaseasonssurveillancereports/20182019season/Influenza%202018-2019%20Season_Summary.pdf

          14. Micko

            @Cian

            “But how is it different from influenza?”

            It’s not!

            Sweet – we finally agree Covid 19 is just like the flu – but worse. Yay! ;)

            .
            .
            Ah, but sure I’m only yanking your chain Cian.

            Of course, doctors and families make decisions all the time to treat or not treat patients. I’ve had to make those hard decisions in my time – and it’s not easy. But that’s life.

            So as my late father was so fond of saying “Doctor’s differ – patients die”.

            Sure he wasn’t wrong…

            Peace Cian ;-)

  1. SOQ

    Yaz forgot to mention this was banned by YouTube?

    Anything banned by YouTube is worth a watch of course- The Streisand effect has definitely mainstreamed.

    1. Nigel

      ‘Anything banned by YouTube is worth a watch of course’

      Hm. What’s the YouTube policy on nazis, as a matter of interest, ban or no ban? If YouTube ban nazis does that mean the nazis are worth a watch?

        1. SOQ

          You know rightly what i mean. Social media banning experts speaking about CoViD-19 are always worth a watch- because they are usually right.

          1. ReproBertie

            “they are usually right.”

            In your opinion. We have seen a lot of experts who would disagree with that opinion..

          2. Cian

            ““there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.” (my emphasis)

            Can you address the *data* that shows there are excess deaths in the UK and Belgium (to name two countries that are in the midst of a second wave, countries that were hit badly in Spring 2020).

            “something” is killing more people than a normal November.

            “Experts” are saying it is this new coronavirus.

            If it isn’t Covid killing them? what is the alternative?

          3. SOQ

            Amazing how you are so concerned about elsewhere all of a sudden Cian- deflection much?

            All countries will see spikes of everything repository this time of year but sure you have been bangin the far drum since last March.

            And now. like your compadres – completely ignoring what Mike Yaedon has to say- he’s like an Ivor Cummins with an English accent.

          4. Cian

            @SOQ
            Why other countries (says Mr LookAtSweden)?

            Because it is relevant. Europe in in a second wave of Covid (counting cases, hospitalisations, ICU and deaths). *You* have denied 2nd wave was even possible… but it is real, it is happening. You also have said to ignore case and reported deaths, but to only look at “excess deaths” – so I am (which knocks your “All countries will see spikes of everything repository this time of year” argument)

            Europe’s second wave is made up:
            – parts of Europe have avoided Covid all year (Finland, Norway).
            – parts of Europe missed out on the April wave (e.g. Poland, Chezchia) and are hitting their first wave now.
            – parts had a bad first wave and are okay now (including Ireland and Sweden)
            – parts of Europe had a bad first wave and are being hit with a second wave now (Belgium, Italy, France, UK, Spain)

            You have consistently said Ireland is doing the wrong thing with lockdowns.

            But now we have examples of countries being hit with a second wave (disproving your “there is no second wave”) when we look at excess deaths (your favoured methodology).

            Ireland isn’t in this second wave (it was following similar trends in cases and hospitalisations as the worst hit countries from mid-August…but we peaked in October) . It is reasonable to attribute this to the Level 3 & 5 lockdowns.

            Granted Sweden are doing well this fall too, (but they have had regional lockdowns “please stay home and don’t use public transport or unnecessary shopping or visit people” recommendations).

            Why am i looking at other countries? Because Ireland WAS tracking their numbers from April through October, but then peaked.

  2. Rob_G

    From the executive producers of ‘Climate-change denial’ –

    Koch Brothers Productions are proud to present:

    COVID denial!!

    1. E'Matty

      From the executive producers of “Anthropogenic Climate Change” – The Rockefellar Family & Co. Productions are proud to present Covid 19 The Great Reset and transition to the new world order. Yay!

      The Koch bros? What minnows…

      1. Nigel

        Yeah, I knew the anti-covid stuff was a precusrsor to a new wave of climate change denialism, just when the need for action is at its most urgent. If you can persuade people to let others die of viral infections, you can persuade them to let people drown and starve.

        1. E'Matty

          Of course ya did Nigel. It’s obvious to everyone that you’ve really got your finger on the pulse of global events. Climate change and Covid (two narratives completely managed by the global predator class) are being spun into one single narrative of restructuring the every aspect of the world we live in to “meet these global challenges”. Global problems require global solutions don’t ya know. If you can pursuade people that the very basis for all organic life is in fact a deadly threat to the environment, and you can convince the idiot class that a virus with a fatality rate of just 0.23% warrants destroying entire portions of society, well, it’s not going to take much to march those idiots (and unfortunately everyone else too) into the new world of absolute control. You’re practically begging for a parental figure to take care of you and protect you against the big bad world.

          As the Irish statesman and philosopher, Edmund Burke, once said “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

          1. ReproBertie

            “the very basis for all organic life is in fact a deadly threat to the environment”

            I’m always amused by the way climate change deniers trot out this line in some shape or form. I can just imagine them explaining how water is crucial for human life so it’s ridiculous to claim that people can drown.

          2. Nigel

            I’ll just point out that the many and manifold solutions that would adress climate change and biodiversity loss do not require any parental figure, and are in fact, being blocked and slowed and undermined by political minorities in positions of power, such as the right in the US. Of course those solutions would reduce dependence on the global fossil fuel industry and increase local control of power and remove economic incentives for the destructive exploitation of natural resources.

  3. Nigel

    ‘AIER envisions a world in which societies are organized according to the principles of pure freedom—in which the role of government is sharply confined to the provision of public goods and individuals can flourish within a truly free market and a free society.’

    Die for the freedom of markets, people.

      1. Nigel

        ‘Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly.’

        By 2030? Now there’s optimism. Anyway it reads like an anarcho-communist’s nerdy dream.

        1. E'Matty

          “Anyway it reads like an anarcho-communist’s nerdy dream.” Yet, it comes from the World Economic Forum’s very own website. Is it that you think it was posted as a joke perhaps? For all we know, such energy has been known of and available for decades. How do you feel about the idea of owning nothing? No bed of your own, no bedroom of your own. No clothes that are yours. No personal property at all. Is personal privacy something you value? Would you be for or against having your thoughts and dreams monitored 24 hours a day in real time? Do you see the world presented as us going in a positive or negative direction?

          1. ReproBertie

            How do you even get out of bed in the morning with all this fear of an imagined future to carry around?

          2. E'Matty

            @ Repro – “all this fear of an imagined future” so, you clearly missed the part where I provided an article from the World Economic Forum’s actual official website and was asking for Nigel’s take on the world being predicted for 10 years from now in the article. Do you think the article was a joke article put up by the WEF? Or do you think some sneaky conspiracy theorist got into the WEF offices and posted it? Care to address the article and maybe set out why you don’t think it has a basis in reality?

            I’m always amused by those who think their narrow little overton window is how the world is. I’d bet you never saw Trump, Brexit or this “pandemic” coming. If anyone had predicted/forecast any of the three to you even a month before the event you’d have scoffed and sneered no doubt, so knowledgable of the world you are. Oh, but the Irish Times and Guardian told you it would be ridiculous to think Brexit would succeed or that Trump would be the next President of the US.

          3. ReproBertie

            I didn’t read the article because there are better sources of science fiction than the World Economic Forum. It’s very amusing to see you toss “World Economic Forum” around as if something appearing on their website means it’s 100% going to happen. It’s almost as if the opening paragraph doesn’t say “It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse.”

          4. E'Matty

            @ Repro – So, you completely ignore the fact that it is the World Economic Forum which is espousing and driving this “Great Reset” agenda, which aims to restructure the entire world and take us through the “4th Industrial Revolution” as they call it. Therefore, where this very same powerful global organisation publishes an article on its own website providing a vision of how that agenda might result, perhaps it might be worth paying attention to it? The very people who are driving the global agenda at present see a world without personal privacy or personal property within ten years as a possible result of the policies they now seek to implement. Yet, you don’t think such an article is even worthy of discussion?

          5. Nigel

            It clearly states that it was posted as a discussion piece, not as an unvarnished vision of a techno-utopia. I liked it better as a Charles Stross novel.

          6. ReproBertie

            That’s right. I’m ignoring all your paranoid nonsense.

            It’s an opinion piece on a possible future which clearly says “Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse.” Despite this you insist on treating it like it’s an actual plan for a future. It’s not even the only article on what the world might be like in 2030.

            It’s a superficial imagining of some aspects of life in a possible future where we have discovered free energy and embraced a form of communism and computers can read our dreams. Do you really think this is worth discussion more than an episode of Doctor Who or Star Trek?

          7. E'Matty

            @ Nigel and Repro- “It clearly states that it was posted as a discussion piece, not as an unvarnished vision of a techno-utopia.” yes, a possible outcome from the next ten years of an agenda they will be overseeing.

            “It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse.” Yes, what we could be heading for. You guys would deny that we could be heading for a world with no personal privacy or property within ten years. I am merely flagging the significance of it being proposed as a possible outcome as envisioned by the very organisation overseeing this global transformation.

            Both of you claim or are ignorant of the significance of this. If your boss at work says to you they are restructuring the company and “in 6 months time there’ll be a lot less (insert your role here) working at this company, and there’ll be no sick pay anymore” or something similar, do you think that’s something you should pay attention to? Nah, clearly not according to you two. Sure anyone can predict whats going to happen to your company. Who’s your boss that we should attach any significance to his pronouncements? He’s only the one managing the process of restructuring that will lead to whatever state the company will be in in 6 months…what would he know..?

          8. ReproBertie

            “an agenda they will be overseeing”
            Baloney. There’s no agenda. There’s a discussion piece. Here’s another one that offers two opposing possibilities on how the world could look in 2030.
            https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/refugees-in-2030

            According to you, because this is published on their website, the WEF will be overseeing two agendas aiming for two conflicting outcomes.

          9. E'Matty

            @ Repro – “Baloney. There’s no agenda.” Eh, you have heard of The Great Reset, right? That is literally an agenda.

            “The WEF are going to oversee an agenda to destroy the US’s standing in the world and raise up other nations as rival superpowers!” – Oh right, so the US’ standing as the prime global superpower will definitely not be challenged in the next ten years? Have you heard of China or the BRICS? How’s the US doing at the moment there Repro? Stable global Superpower?

            “The WEF has an agenda to make us eat insects and see meat as a treat!” – Oh, if you find that amusing, you’re going to love your new plant based mass produced diet. Haven’t you noticed that veganism is now mainstream and meat eating is frowned upon due to carbon emissions? Small independent farms are becoming increasingly squeezed out of the market. Soon, it’ll be plant based from major producers, and not even organic food production is safe anymore. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181213101308.htm
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/organic-farming-environment-lord-krebs
            https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-12-13/study-organic-food-is-worse-for-the-climate-than-non-organic-food

            As one H.Kissinger once said “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”…not far to go now…

          10. ReproBertie

            Very amusing but you ignored the one that posited two opposing viewpoints. How are they going to push both of them?

            Also, the WEF is not overseeing an agenda to destroy the US’s standing. They asked someone to write an opinion piece and that person spoke about how the US would possibly lose its standing as lone super power.

            You do understand what an opinion piece is, right? Or do you believe the WEF printed that piece and then set about making it come true?

          11. ReproBertie

            “Eh, you have heard of The Great Reset, right? That is literally an agenda.”

            That depends. Do you mean the Great Reset which was a proposal (not an agenda) by the WEF that we look to make economies more sustainable post-Covid?

            Or do you mean the conspiracy theory built up around a deliberate misrepresentation of the WEF proposal? Because that most definitely is an agenda but not the WEF’s.

        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          What have bears ever done to you that you want their arms? Just cos Penneys can’t sell you a pair of gloves, there’s no need for extremes!

      1. E'Matty

        Freedom of movement, freedom to assemble, freedom of expression, right to earn a livelihood, just for starters…

          1. E'Matty

            @ Nigel – Not sure of the relevance of your comment to the discussion but I actually didn’t have any personal preference in that vote, though I did see the Brexit vote as a very real possibility, even when all of our media and official Ireland sneered and laughed at the very suggestion that it might carry the vote.

    1. SOQ

      Yup and not one of them commenting on what Mike Yaedon has to say- that would require some engaging of the brain of course.

  4. Cian

    The UK’s most recent death registration. From their Office for National Statistics.

    Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 6 November 2020

    – The number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 6 November 2020 (Week 45) was 11,812; this was 925 more deaths than in Week 44.

    – In Week 45, the number of deaths registered was 14.3% above the five-year average (1,481 deaths higher).

    – Of the deaths registered in Week 45, 1,937 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, accounting for 16.4% of all deaths in England and Wales; this is an increase of 558 deaths compared with Week 44 (when there were 1,379 deaths involving COVID-19, accounting for 12.7% of all deaths).
    (my emphasis)

    If not Covid – what is causing the excess deaths in the UK?

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending6november2020

    1. jibjob

      People showing non-Covid symptoms have been reluctant to see GPs and go to hospital.

      For example, during the first lockdown, far fewer cases of cancer than expected were identified and treated.

      1. Cian

        Good point, and it might explain some of the excess deaths, but I find it hard to believe it would cause a wave of deaths so soon.

        Why are they are all suddenly dying in November? And coincidently this death increase also follows closely increases in positive tests, then hospitalisations, and ICU admissions. And all these dead people that tested positive for covid too.

        1. E'Matty

          @ Cian – I wonder how the immune systems of their elderly population were coming into the Oct/Nov season when natural death rates always rise, where many of the most elderly were locked up in their homes, some completely isolated and alone, with limited fresh air, exercise or sunlight for the half year preceding? Added to that half a year of being instilled with terror over a virus that was supposedly creeping the land killing your age group en masse…

          1. Cian

            @E’Matty
            Where were the elderly “locked up in their homes, some completely isolated and alone, with limited fresh air, exercise or sunlight for the half year preceding?”
            I must have missed the old people being locked into their homes with the windows nailed shut. Oh wait, that never happened.

            “that half a year of being instilled with terror over a virus that was supposedly creeping the land killing your age group en masse”
            okay, so you’re suggestion is that the excess death is old people “dying of fright”?

            interesting proposal. difficult to either prove or disprove.

          2. E'Matty

            @ Cian – are you suggesting tens of thousands of elderly people were not confined to their homes for extended periods over the months from May to September, many too afraid to venture out for risk of catching the “virus”?

            “okay, so you’re suggestion is that the excess death is old people “dying of fright”?” Oh right Cian, tell us what fear and its ancillary stress does to the immune system over time.

            Do you think Britain’s elderly population would have exactly the same health level across the popualtion had we never heard of Covid and lockdowns? Do you think there has been no impact on their health resulting from the impact of the resposne to Covid?

    1. f_lawless

      Smacks of “hit piece” to me. Notwithstanding that the authors – a PhD student in psychiatric genetics and the head of research at a neoliberal think tank and lobbying group – would hardly have any kind of expertise in the field comparable to Yeadon’s. trying to lump Yeadon in with people who are sceptical “if the pandemic ever existed” in the first place (as the article does) is what they call “smear by association”.

      Another example that the article is not on the level: The authors dismiss Yeadon’s estimates of how many of the UK population already infected, saying “It’s dependent on a substantial underestimation of the IFR. The WHO has estimated the Covid-19 IFR is around 0.5%-1.0%”.They give a link to a WHO bulletin dated August 4th.. But a more recent, and much lower estimate of the IFR – at just 0.23& -was published by the WHO on the 14th October (https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf). The Unherd article is dated November 5th. Why did they use an outdated IFR estimate to base their argument on?

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!