Just a few of my points of view for all you lockdown believers.
Covid 19 is relatively harmless to the majority of the popolation [latest figures out to 18 Oct. 2020 show the average median age of death with covid 19 is 82 years and more significantly the presence of comorbidities is in 90% of all cases / deaths.
Throughout this pandemic the Goverment has manipulated the Covid stats to present the strongest possible case for supporting lockdowns and other rules that are impinging on our basic freedoms, and not necsessarily the true picture behind this virus.
We never get the data breakdowns of covid deaths, e.g. what were the age bands and were there any underlying serious conditions / comorbidities? Many of these deaths with covid were not actually the sole cause for those that, sadly passed away.
Yes,they may have had the virus,but alongside other serious conditions they had,it wouldn't have helped - but the cause of death Covid 19 only? i don't think so.
Statistics for England also show that age is the strongest predictor of death by Covid19, for over 75 s if you get the virus 11.6 % will die from it. For the age group 65 - 74 the risk of death if you get the virus is 3.1% ,for age group 45 - 64 the risk is 0.5% and for 15 years to 44 years old the risk is 0.03 %
Also for some reason, men are nearly twice as likely to die from covid than females, figures to date show approx. 64% male deaths to 36 % for women.
Furthermore the "Great Barrington Declaration" which thousands of scientists and academic professionals from around the world have signed recently has stated that the costs of lockdowns, rules re hospitatility, the 3 tier system etc. etc. are causing 1000's and thousands of unnecessary deaths from the NHS and hospitals not dealing with other serious medical issues or people not seeking treatment due to the incessant messages from the goverment.
The goverment should protect the vunerable and let the rest of us get on with living our normal lifes, nobody is stopping you self isolating or wearing a mask if that is what you want,or that is the science that you choose to believe.
Flu, pneumonia, heart disease, cancer ,alzeimers, suicides, deaths from these if put side by side with covid19 and we will all be able to judge better the risks,
Like that old lass of 83 from Barnsley on the BBC news yesterday, who hit the nail on the head, she said she won't be around when the bill for all this comes in, but our children and grandchildren will be paying for all this madness for years to come.

Good post Kev.
Also the thing that really boils my urine is the following...
"New infections/Deaths with a positive test in the last 28 days"
What does that tell us?
For example, you could be infected, but with no symptoms, get knocked down by a bus and be recorded as one of these deaths....
As for the 83 year old, good proper Barnsley lass - says what she sees!
....bet she was a warm 'un in her youth!

Who knew that the Wakefield Trinity Supporters Club had a tin foil hat division?

It is the obvious question and maybe there is some credence to what the doubters have said on here.
I am looking at it from a healthcare research perspective in the fact that I am purely looking at mortality figures which don't entirely show - as you point out - the correct figures regarding [isolely[/i the Covid deaths.
I am at a loss to why the Govt would do this, with regard to tax collection and employment. as you have also pointed out.

What we've seen happen among the people of free nations is a sobering reminder of how fear has a powerful disabling effect on the ability to think rationally. When people ask how the Germans could allowed have things to get so out of control back in the 1930s , the answer will be "well, just look at what happened during Covid in 2020."

Having studied 1930s Germany I recognise the mindset of those on here, you in particular wrencat, I see the tactics you and your cohorts use being used back then in an attempt to discredit anyone simply asking questions let alone having the audacity to offer an answer. Back then they would be accused of being a jew or a communist today it's “a David Icke” or “tin foil hat.”

Free speech is under attack, debate de-railed by your insults and smears.
Do you make any wonder so few people are willing to come on here to answer your strange (after 51 pages?) question, here it is“The obvious question with this is, why the government (any government in any country) would want to show a virus to be more prevalent than it is “

You enablers of this tyranny have a lot to answer for. Just as well you can hide your (future) shame behind the anonymity of your user name and hide your face behind a mask. Because the truth will come out, you can not offer the excuse “I didn't know.” You may not accept an answer, and that is your right, but that does not excuse your 100% support of this tyrrany being imposed upon us.
A pity you fail to answer any of my questions put to you on pg. 50 just as Poptart fails to back up his many smears.
I will say this, no matter how much all this is discredited with the bogus figures, discredited tests, backtracking by the WHO on lockdown, The government you support WILL NOT LET THIS GO.

PS.
The Nazis had a phrase to gain compliance; 'Fur ihre sicherheit'- IT'S FOR YOUR SAFETY”

All 99.9% of us.

I find some of your comparisons somewhat offensive.
And comparing the actions of governments in every corner of the planet, including places like New Zealand, who have taken similar but more effective action, in largely ridding itself of the virus, seem to go against you "they're all out to get us" ideas.
Sorry, pal, but, just because I dont buy into the bogey man theory, doesn't put me in the same category as the Nazis

Just where the hell do you come up with phrases like "enablers of this tyranny"

The "tyranny" exists only in your head and it may well be that some are just trying to help rid us of the virus.

Unlike yourself, I dont have any personal agenda here. Maybe your the one trying to build a new dictatorial movement.

I like a good history lesson please do tell us miro about Germany back in the 1930s

I just wanted to pick up on this idea of the WHO backtracking on lock down. Can you show us evidence of the WHO previously supporting lock down?
They did have it as a last resort to gain some time to put other measures in place, but I can't see anywhere they actually supported it as a method of combating the virus. Their position has not changed - so no backtracking

Coco, the WHO chief T.A.Ghebreyerus said on the 20/04/2020 , around the beginning of the pandemic "So called Lockdowns can help take the heat out of a countries epidemic,but lockdowns taken alone cannot end it"
That to me,would suggest that they support lockdowns as one part of the armoury in the fight against the Covid 19 virus.

Well there you go. To me it says that their position is unchanged. A tool to take the heat out of the situation (i.e. create space to put other plans in place) but are not a solution.
This was the biggest failure in the UK. Lockdown must be a one-hit policy because it is so damaging to the economy and everything else including education and mental health. The lockdown was effective in doing what it does, temporarily halting the spread to allow time to organise more sustainable measures, test, track and trace, but they failed spectacularly and we're now heading for another lockdown in all but name.

I'm sorry this assessment is just wrong. Lockdowns in reality have little to no impact on halting the spread of this virus. If you stop relying on assumptions and look at the actual data it supports my view. We know the number of days between infection to fatality is at least 23 days. So if you go back to the start, we entered into lockdown on 23 March 2020,this would mean the peak of the curve should be on or after 13 April 2020, but the actual daily death data (not the daily reported deaths!) shows it was on 8th April 2020. Deaths by 13th April had fallen from 900 a day on the 8th April to 690 a day and this downward trend continued daily even after non essential shops were allowed to reopen on 15 June. This decline cannot therefore be credited to any lockdowns. If you still don't believe I'm correct, check out the same curve found in Sweden. The graph shows it followed the exact course of the UK; raised exponentially and fell without a lockdown.

And yet governments across the planet continue to use "lockdown" as a measure to curb the spread.
Are they all wrong but, your analysis is correct ?

The UK Government was pretty convinced that it was indeed the lockdown that had help prevent the numbers growing and deaths rising beyond what was, at the time, hospital capacity.

The problem with the UK 'curve' at that time is that we were doing hardly any testing so many, if not most, cases were being missed and it is fairly impossible to read anything from it. The figures in the UK have been adjusted/corrected several times making it difficult to analyse. Look at other countries to see the clear effect of lockdown.
Now that we're doing more tests, the time between test and death is pretty long. Previously, we were only testing hospitalised cases and treatment wasn't as good, so the time was much shorter. I'll look for some comparisons tomorrow if I get chance.

This is why I concentrated my assessment on the actual hospitalised C19 death curve (NHS data - peak 8th April) and ignored the government reported C19 deaths (also a number of deaths they report on the day are obviously related to C19 deaths from days/weeks ago) across the entire community. Lets not go near the curve for "cases" it's too problematic as you know.

No, the infection to fatality of at least 23 days comes from looking at the early studies in February when the knowledge of medical treatments for the virus was in it's infancy. The period covers the full timeline from infection, incubation, onset of symptoms, severe illness, hospitalisation and death.

You'll see the majority of curves for each nation, with a population count over 10 million, raised exponentially then fell regardless of any prior/post lockdowns or mask interventions.