Quote: Miro "Unfortunately this is a frequently used underhand tactic by Coco. Guilty by association.'" If all else fails they just resort to the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Looks like those stories on social media regarding disgruntled families complaining about C19 being added to the death certificates are finally being reported by the mainstream media The father of a teenager reported to be the youngest person to die with Covid-19 in NI has said he doesn't want him to be remembered as a statistic. [i "These headlines are very hurting to us, that he has become a statistic of Covid-19," he said. "I don't want him to be remembered as a statistic, as the youngest person to have died of Covid. As far as we are concerned he died of heart failure. He added"The number of people that die after catching the virus, known as the infection fatality rate, is about 0.5%."[/i https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54570373 I had to read that line twice, hang on they now claim the Infection fatality is 0.5%! What happened to the 5% fatality rate they kept banging on about back in March. LMFAO I'm sure they are sneakily dropping their estimate every single month on their news articles without announcing it on their news station. They're not far off my prediction of 0.2% now.

Quote: Miro "Unfortunately this is a frequently used underhand tactic by Coco. Guilty by association.'" If all else fails they just resort to the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Looks like those stories on social media regarding disgruntled families complaining about C19 being added to the death certificates are finally being reported by the mainstream media The father of a teenager reported to be the youngest person to die with Covid-19 in NI has said he doesn't want him to be remembered as a statistic. [i "These headlines are very hurting to us, that he has become a statistic of Covid-19," he said. "I don't want him to be remembered as a statistic, as the youngest person to have died of Covid. As far as we are concerned he died of heart failure. He added"The number of people that die after catching the virus, known as the infection fatality rate, is about 0.5%."[/i https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54570373 I had to read that line twice, hang on they now claim the Infection fatality is 0.5%! What happened to the 5% fatality rate they kept banging on about back in March. LMFAO I'm sure they are sneakily dropping their estimate every single month on their news articles without announcing it on their news station. They're not far off my prediction of 0.2% now.

You are welcome to raise your issue with site Admin.

In my view this is a discussion about current affairs. Nothing goes against AUP apart from the last few post trying to stop people having an opinion.

Quote: wrencat1873 "I'm sure there are 100's. However the one that I referred to was the 21st that the particular organisation had run. The very fact that they are so frequent, would seem to dispel the "hope" that the 2019 conference that yourself and Miro have been pinning so much kudos towards, was indeed, just another coincidence. Mind you, coincidence and possibilities are very strong themes on this thread. Have you researched Sweden yet ?'" Frequency could also indicate it's been on the cards for quite some time. It ensures collaboration and familiarity between stakeholders so everyone is buying into the same 'group think' strategies. Another John Hopkins special... https://www.forhealthsecurity.org ... _exercise/ Come to think of it after simulating all these scenarios you'd think by now they would have worked out whether face masks worked or not before the start of this year. I'll get back to you on Sweden tomorrow, I'm hoping to report on the current total of all cause mortality compared to previous years.

Quote: wrencat1873 "I'm sure there are 100's. However the one that I referred to was the 21st that the particular organisation had run. The very fact that they are so frequent, would seem to dispel the "hope" that the 2019 conference that yourself and Miro have been pinning so much kudos towards, was indeed, just another coincidence. Mind you, coincidence and possibilities are very strong themes on this thread. Have you researched Sweden yet ?'" Frequency could also indicate it's been on the cards for quite some time. It ensures collaboration and familiarity between stakeholders so everyone is buying into the same 'group think' strategies. Another John Hopkins special... https://www.forhealthsecurity.org ... _exercise/ Come to think of it after simulating all these scenarios you'd think by now they would have worked out whether face masks worked or not before the start of this year. I'll get back to you on Sweden tomorrow, I'm hoping to report on the current total of all cause mortality compared to previous years.

How have I trashed my own argument? I asked what knowledge do you have and all you do is state “The conference was just the latest get together to discuss what MAY happen.”

I presume then that you are just taking their word for it because hey! These people do not lie do they? I mean, Corporations and world leaders and the like never lie, squeaky clean the lot of them. Never been known to lie and cheat. Lets face it, they are hardly likely to say it WILL happen. Bearing in mind also that many of the delegates are possibly as much in the dark as you.

So we come back to the fact that your view of my point of view is no more substantial than my view of yours.

I am disappointed wrencat, I though you would unlock this whole charade for us and finally put us in our place but no, you just say what you think has happened or simply take the word of that set of unspeakables.

Just one more thing. Have you a link to any of the other events you speak of. Have they been televised, have a website, youtubed as this one has etc. and given as much publicity (pre-covid) by the authors as Event 201. Or is this the only one and if so, why only this one I wonder.

How do I feel about the current deaths and increase in cases? I don't know what to think to be honest because the figures in the past have been massaged, as we all now know. Incidently something myself and MatthewTrin spoke of long before that fact was officially revealed.)
How can I trust the same liars now.

Just seen the post from MatthewTrin, fatality rate from covid .5% hmmm!

May I throw a question back at you and ask again, how many suicides, delayed cancer ops, livelihoods destroyed, increase in mental illness are you prepared to accept before you admit all these ridiculous measures are completely dis-proportionate

Quote: MatthewTrin "Having previously made an incorrect statement about Swedish schools you follow it with some type of dig against a website and US news anchor that I have no knowledge about. I actuallly took the link from google after hearing about the publication on YouTube, I must have copied it wrong. Still doesn't change the conclusion of the paper regarding full lockdowns. Good luck with your faith in Covidianity.'" I didn't say you got the quote via that specific website, I only suggested it was the 'type' of website you got it from. It is cherry-picked and out of context for the paper. Google is a search engine, where did you actually get the (selective) quote from? You were prompted to the quote by a YouTube channel, what channel? Quote: MatthewTrin "Just a couple of points to end this game of online tennis to bed, here's a conclusion in a paper on the Lancet [i These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes. However,[i] in our analysis[/i, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.[/i] Also for your information secondary schools in Sweden remained open up until the age of 16. I look forward to viewing the overall mortality in Sweden at the end of the year compared to the last five years to see if they got it right.'" Some other quotes from the actual paperMortality rates were also higher in those counties with an older population upon univariate analysis, but age as a factor was not retained in multivariable analysis (Fig. 2).[i Lastly, government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with [sizestatistically significant[/size reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality[/i.'" Quote: MatthewTrin "There were a series of predictors with significant associations with the outcome variables that require careful interpretation. An increased scale of national testing was not associated with the number of critical cases, or deaths per million. The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR Quote: MatthewTrin "In the case of full lockdowns, such a government policy may only be effective in those countries where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral transmission, and encouraging open revolt [40].'" This is a scientific paper published in a very prestigious journal. The process of getting something published in there is very long and thorough. There cannot be any errors and all claims must be supported by the evidence provided in the study. Quite often, things you hope to prove do not meet the accepted minimum probability (95% confidence intervals or p2.2. Statistical analysis The unit of analysis was each individual country, and baseline information on each nation was presented descriptively as medians, means and proportions, with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). 95%CIs were also presented for medians, which represent the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles. Event rates as descriptive measures were calculated by dividing the number of COVID-19 related events by the total number of reported cases. The outcome variables of interest were the total number of cases, recovered cases, critical cases, and overall mortality, all expressed per million population (as ofMay 01, 2020). Poisson regression modeling (PRM) is typically used to evaluate count data. However, overdispersion, which occurs when the conditional variance exceeds the conditional mean, must be assessed. Negative binomial regression modeling (NBRM) can be used for overdispersed count data. If the dependent variable is over-dispersed, the confidence intervals for the coefficients of NBRM are likely to be narrower relative to those generated from PRM. In the current analysis, each model was assessed for overdispersion using the Likelihood ratio test, which compares the Log likelihood generated from a Poisson and Negative binomial regression model. The difference in 2 x (Ln LNBRM Ln LPRM) is equal to a chi square with one degree of freedom. A statistically significant difference is consistent with the presence of overdispersion. An initial assessment of the data indicated considerable over-dispersion, precluding the use of Poisson regression for count data. Therefore, a series ofmain effects multivariable negative binomial regression models were built to identify the factors significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality as well as the other health outcomes (a total of 4 models). The main exposure variable for each model, which is amount of time an observation was at risk, was the duration of virus exposure in days, from the first reported case in the reference country until May 01, 2020. Given the limited sample size (n . The Likelihood ratio test was then used in a backwards elimination process (p < 0.05 to retain) to select the final set of independent variables for retention in the COVID-19 outcome models. Special data handling methods were not be employed for dealing with missing data for the predictor or outcome variables. All outcomes of the regression analysis were reported as rate ratios (RR), where a value less than one suggests a decreased likelihood and a value of greater than one an increased likelihood of the event under investigation. Model goodness of fit and evaluation of outliers were assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and McFadden’s pseudo R-squared statistic. Individual models were assessed with and without potential outliers to evaluate their impact on the results. All of the statistical analyses were performed using Stata, release 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).'" As an example, via my work, we did some analysis of the local weather patterns of the last 20 years' data from the local airport to get an insight into potential climate change impacts for local small-holder farmers. When this was analysed by a university our findings were seen as not statistically significant. Because climate changes are very slow and weather data is extremely variable, we would have needed 30 years' data, but the airport and weather station had only been built 20 years ago. Just because our data and findings / hypotheses could not be used for scientific purposes does not mean they weren't true. I don't really like to cover to topics in one post, but for the sake of efficiency: Sweden. The point I was making about Sweden is that they had measures in place and what you may define as a 'lockdown' is on a sliding scale. I didn't know what the structure of the Swedish education system was and assumed elementary/secondary schools were the same as elsewhere. Apparently, they refer to secondary schools as 16-19. However, the schools that were 'open' were not exactly business as usual. https://www.tes.com/news/have-swedish-s ... ied-normal A bit like the UK really? The substantive point was that it's still a false dichotomy to compare countries with or without lockdown. I'm sure some people in France feel that the UK never had a lockdown. Did you frequently get challenged by police to produce documentation for proof of why you were outside the house? Local conditions and prevalence of the virus dictate different actions.

Quote: MatthewTrin "Having previously made an incorrect statement about Swedish schools you follow it with some type of dig against a website and US news anchor that I have no knowledge about. I actuallly took the link from google after hearing about the publication on YouTube, I must have copied it wrong. Still doesn't change the conclusion of the paper regarding full lockdowns. Good luck with your faith in Covidianity.'" I didn't say you got the quote via that specific website, I only suggested it was the 'type' of website you got it from. It is cherry-picked and out of context for the paper. Google is a search engine, where did you actually get the (selective) quote from? You were prompted to the quote by a YouTube channel, what channel? Quote: MatthewTrin "Just a couple of points to end this game of online tennis to bed, here's a conclusion in a paper on the Lancet [i These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes. However,[i] in our analysis[/i, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.[/i] Also for your information secondary schools in Sweden remained open up until the age of 16. I look forward to viewing the overall mortality in Sweden at the end of the year compared to the last five years to see if they got it right.'" Some other quotes from the actual paperMortality rates were also higher in those counties with an older population upon univariate analysis, but age as a factor was not retained in multivariable analysis (Fig. 2).[i Lastly, government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with [sizestatistically significant[/size reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality[/i.'" Quote: MatthewTrin "There were a series of predictors with significant associations with the outcome variables that require careful interpretation. An increased scale of national testing was not associated with the number of critical cases, or deaths per million. The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR Quote: MatthewTrin "In the case of full lockdowns, such a government policy may only be effective in those countries where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral transmission, and encouraging open revolt [40].'" This is a scientific paper published in a very prestigious journal. The process of getting something published in there is very long and thorough. There cannot be any errors and all claims must be supported by the evidence provided in the study. Quite often, things you hope to prove do not meet the accepted minimum probability (95% confidence intervals or p2.2. Statistical analysis The unit of analysis was each individual country, and baseline information on each nation was presented descriptively as medians, means and proportions, with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). 95%CIs were also presented for medians, which represent the 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles. Event rates as descriptive measures were calculated by dividing the number of COVID-19 related events by the total number of reported cases. The outcome variables of interest were the total number of cases, recovered cases, critical cases, and overall mortality, all expressed per million population (as ofMay 01, 2020). Poisson regression modeling (PRM) is typically used to evaluate count data. However, overdispersion, which occurs when the conditional variance exceeds the conditional mean, must be assessed. Negative binomial regression modeling (NBRM) can be used for overdispersed count data. If the dependent variable is over-dispersed, the confidence intervals for the coefficients of NBRM are likely to be narrower relative to those generated from PRM. In the current analysis, each model was assessed for overdispersion using the Likelihood ratio test, which compares the Log likelihood generated from a Poisson and Negative binomial regression model. The difference in 2 x (Ln LNBRM Ln LPRM) is equal to a chi square with one degree of freedom. A statistically significant difference is consistent with the presence of overdispersion. An initial assessment of the data indicated considerable over-dispersion, precluding the use of Poisson regression for count data. Therefore, a series ofmain effects multivariable negative binomial regression models were built to identify the factors significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality as well as the other health outcomes (a total of 4 models). The main exposure variable for each model, which is amount of time an observation was at risk, was the duration of virus exposure in days, from the first reported case in the reference country until May 01, 2020. Given the limited sample size (n . The Likelihood ratio test was then used in a backwards elimination process (p < 0.05 to retain) to select the final set of independent variables for retention in the COVID-19 outcome models. Special data handling methods were not be employed for dealing with missing data for the predictor or outcome variables. All outcomes of the regression analysis were reported as rate ratios (RR), where a value less than one suggests a decreased likelihood and a value of greater than one an increased likelihood of the event under investigation. Model goodness of fit and evaluation of outliers were assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and McFadden’s pseudo R-squared statistic. Individual models were assessed with and without potential outliers to evaluate their impact on the results. All of the statistical analyses were performed using Stata, release 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).'" As an example, via my work, we did some analysis of the local weather patterns of the last 20 years' data from the local airport to get an insight into potential climate change impacts for local small-holder farmers. When this was analysed by a university our findings were seen as not statistically significant. Because climate changes are very slow and weather data is extremely variable, we would have needed 30 years' data, but the airport and weather station had only been built 20 years ago. Just because our data and findings / hypotheses could not be used for scientific purposes does not mean they weren't true. I don't really like to cover to topics in one post, but for the sake of efficiency: Sweden. The point I was making about Sweden is that they had measures in place and what you may define as a 'lockdown' is on a sliding scale. I didn't know what the structure of the Swedish education system was and assumed elementary/secondary schools were the same as elsewhere. Apparently, they refer to secondary schools as 16-19. However, the schools that were 'open' were not exactly business as usual. https://www.tes.com/news/have-swedish-s ... ied-normal A bit like the UK really? The substantive point was that it's still a false dichotomy to compare countries with or without lockdown. I'm sure some people in France feel that the UK never had a lockdown. Did you frequently get challenged by police to produce documentation for proof of why you were outside the house? Local conditions and prevalence of the virus dictate different actions.

For example?

Again, your input into the 'discussion' is a Gish gallop of assertions and opinions without any supporting evidence.

You are absolutely free to have any opinions you wish and they require no evidence or support.

I have no interest in changing your beliefs.

if someone believes there are fairies at the bottom of their garden, that's fair enough (pun intended), but if they want to assert this as the truth to other people, they need to provide some proof.

If you wish to take part in a debate with others then you need to provide suitable evidence and support, ideally one topic at a time.

Unfortunately this is a frequently used underhand tactic by Coco. Guilty by association
"they need to provide some proof."
I already have, I challenged you on this very subject after one particular post from you. You didn't respond then so if you think I'm going to trawl back through the posts to find it now your mistaken.

On what subject?

Quote: MatthewTrin "If all else fails they just resort to the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Looks like those stories on social media regarding disgruntled families complaining about C19 being added to the death certificates are finally being reported by the mainstream media The father of a teenager reported to be the youngest person to die with Covid-19 in NI has said he doesn't want him to be remembered as a statistic. [i "These headlines are very hurting to us, that he has become a statistic of Covid-19," he said. "I don't want him to be remembered as a statistic, as the youngest person to have died of Covid. As far as we are concerned he died of heart failure. He added[iI also came across this little beauty from the BBC the other day [i]"The number of people that die after catching the virus, known as the infection fatality rate, is about 0.5%."[/i [/i] You'll like this one then... https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/05/infe ... -covid-19/ Can you show us an example of where 'they' kept banging on about 5% fatality rate back March? Are you sure your weren't getting mixed up with infection rate? or something else?

Quote: MatthewTrin "If all else fails they just resort to the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Looks like those stories on social media regarding disgruntled families complaining about C19 being added to the death certificates are finally being reported by the mainstream media The father of a teenager reported to be the youngest person to die with Covid-19 in NI has said he doesn't want him to be remembered as a statistic. [i "These headlines are very hurting to us, that he has become a statistic of Covid-19," he said. "I don't want him to be remembered as a statistic, as the youngest person to have died of Covid. As far as we are concerned he died of heart failure. He added[iI also came across this little beauty from the BBC the other day [i]"The number of people that die after catching the virus, known as the infection fatality rate, is about 0.5%."[/i [/i] You'll like this one then... https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/05/infe ... -covid-19/ Can you show us an example of where 'they' kept banging on about 5% fatality rate back March? Are you sure your weren't getting mixed up with infection rate? or something else?

Get ready for "lockdown 2", looks like its coming very soon. Maybe the hospitals ARE filling up again, it must be with people pretending they are ill with a fake virus https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... r-54730059 Mind you he's still alive so, they may be right

Get ready for "lockdown 2", looks like its coming very soon. Maybe the hospitals ARE filling up again, it must be with people pretending they are ill with a fake virus https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... r-54730059 Mind you he's still alive so, they may be right

But they are keeping schools and universities open?!

Which when you looks at the infection rate by age group, makes little or no sense, this is where and how the majority of cases are being transmitted. A lockdown should be a lockdown of everything, with only essential shops and travel allowed, anything less than that is pointless, also all foreign travel both in and out of the UK should be stopped. If not, just let us get back to normal and allow darwins theory and Mother Nature to sort it out.

Only Bojo would wait until the school holidays had finished and then go for a lockdown.

This is now about finding a way to allow families to spend Christmas together, although, he wasn't quite as bothered when Eid was taking place.
Act early and prevent a longer exit would have been eminently more sensible.