Covid-19 Discussion

[markjay]

From the outset SAGE (no immunologists/ virologists present) and the modelling of the theoretical physicist (not an immunologist) Neil Ferguson have worked from the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is a totally new (novel) virus. They therefore assume that no pre-existing community immunity exists. Hence the worldwide coordinated response of suppression until vaccination through physical interventions (lockdown, masks & distancing).

SARS-CoV-2 is a Coronavirus, which are a related group of RNA viruses that cause disease in mammals and birds. Pre-exisiting community immunity already exists for Coronaviruses. That is why the vast majority of deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2 are from people with weak immune systems (75+years old with 2 or more comorbities). This piece of the pathology of SARS-CoV-2 is now known.

With the new Wuhan asymptomatic antibody study another piece of pathology is also known. Asymptomatic spreading of this virus is almost non existent and when asymptomatic cases are identified the subjects have all tested as not being infectious. Yet governments worldwide still persist with suppression until vaccination policies based on the assumption that no pre-existing community immunity exists. Ignoring the known pathology of this virus.

OK, but for the third and final time, how is the discussion regarding asymptomatic infectious spreaders relevant outside the realm of academic interest?

In other words, in what way would the measures taken so far be any different if we knew for fact that people are only infectious when they also have other symptoms, e.g. coughing and sneezing, or headaches, or fatigue, or loss of smell or taste, or other typical COVID-19 symptoms?

And, on a side note, you seem to be confounding 'previous immunity' with 'asymptomatic spreading'.

 

[ChipChop]

OK, but for the third and final time, how is the discussion regarding asymptomatic infectious spreaders relevant outside the realm of academic interest?

In other words, in what way would the measures taken so far be any different if we knew for fact that the virus only spreads via sneezing and coughing?

On a side note, you seem to be confounding 'previous immunity' with 'asymptomatic spreading'.

see post 6470 by st13phil

"The reality is that in the UK, much of the concentration on mass testing and also the structure of the quarantine regime has been justified on the basis that there is an unknown (but important) level of asymptomatic transmission. Note: not pre-symptomatic transmission (which it appears does happen - to an extent), but asymptomatic transmission. This means that resources have been, and continue to be, expended on a false errand ("detecting" asymptomatic cases) and that people have been instructed to self isolate as a result of coming into contact with an asymptomatic individual who has had a positive PCR test result, most likely from a mass-screening test."

It is pre existing community immunity not "previous immunity". Quite different to the now disproven theory of asymptomatic spreading.

 

[markjay]

see post 6470 by st13phil

"The reality is that in the UK, much of the concentration on mass testing and also the structure of the quarantine regime has been justified on the basis that there is an unknown (but important) level of asymptomatic transmission. Note: not pre-symptomatic transmission (which it appears does happen - to an extent), but asymptomatic transmission. This means that resources have been, and continue to be, expended on a false errand ("detecting" asymptomatic cases) and that people have been instructed to self isolate as a result of coming into contact with an asymptomatic individual who has had a positive PCR test result, most likely from a mass-screening test."

It is pre existing community immunity not "previous immunity". Quite different to the now disproven theory of asymptomatic spreading.

st13phil says that the "structure of the quarantine regime has been justified on the basis that there is an unknown (but important) level of asymptomatic transmission", and I take it that you concur or you wouldn't have quoted it otherwise.

I think that this is an assertion that is not supported by evidence, i.e. I don't recall the architects of the UK's COVID-19 response, Prof Whitty and Prof Vallance, saying anything of the sort.

That said, while I may disagree with the propositions made in your post, you have addressed the question, so thank you for that.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

And so the tide turns; those who were at more risk of dying from being ran over are going to be paying for this for a very long time: Rishi Sunak warns 'economic emergency has only just begun'

I can see a future where we look back in hindsight (already actually) and see that so much has been sacrificed by so many people that were at virtually no risk to dying from it that they’ve effectively been hit twice: their Liberty has been restricted and they’ll be paying higher taxes for a very very long time.

Although I won’t hold my breath, hopefully all those deemed most at risk that have benefitted from lockdowns etc will be asked to make substantial contributions towards this economic shortfall like a big tax on pensions etc after all, we have all had to make sacrifices, haven’t we...

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Although I won’t hold my breath, hopefully all those deemed most at risk that have benefitted from lockdowns etc will be asked to make substantial contributions towards this economic shortfall like a big tax on pensions etc after all, we have all had to make sacrifices, haven’t we...

Higher-rate taxpayers £85,000 worse off if Rishi Sunak cuts pensions tax relief

The Treasury is (once again) said to be considering cutting pensions tax relief

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[ChipChop]

st13phil says that the "structure of the quarantine regime has been justified on the basis that there is an unknown (but important) level of asymptomatic transmission", and I take it that you concur or you wouldn't have quoted it otherwise.

I think that this is an assertion that is not supported by evidence, i.e. I don't recall the architects of the UK's COVID-19 response, Prof Whitty and Prof Vallance, saying anything of the sort.

That said, while I may disagree with the propositions made in your post, you have addressed the question, so thank you for that.

After the initial short lived herd immunity response to Covid-19 by Whitty & Vallance the world and UK response became one of passive delay or suppression until vaccination.

Maybe you can point out when during the current suppression or delay phase any scientific / political will has been shown towards finding who is in fact live infectious or had natural antibody immunity (through infection & recovery or pre-existing immunity through prior coronavirus exposure) within the UK population.

Without these enquiries all are assumed to be capable of transmission which includes the notion of asymptomatic transmission.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Higher-rate taxpayers £85,000 worse off if Rishi Sunak cuts pensions tax relief

The Treasury is (once again) said to be considering cutting pensions tax relief

www.telegraph.co.uk

Proof will be in the pudding; I simply can't see how he can't go after money that would have been classed as untouchable only a year ago.

I also think there'll be a shift in death taxes too, certainly IHT looks ripe. Be interesting to see if a Tory chancellor would dare to go after that though, it is literally a tax on Tories.

 

[markjay]

After the initial short lived herd immunity response to Covid-19 by Whitty & Vallance the world and UK response became one of passive delay or suppression until vaccination.

Maybe you can point out when during the current suppression or delay phase any scientific / political will has been shown towards finding who is in fact live infectious or had natural antibody immunity (through infection & recovery or pre-existing immunity through prior coronavirus exposure) within the UK population.

Without these enquiries all are assumed to be capable of transmission which includes the notion of asymptomatic transmission.

Is there any evidence that Whitty & Vallance's plans were specifically formulated based on the assumption of asymptomatic transmission? Until such evidence is produced, it remains a supposition.

And, again, what is the connection between 'natural antibody immunity' and 'asymptomatic transmission'?

 

[markjay]

Higher-rate taxpayers £85,000 worse off if Rishi Sunak cuts pensions tax relief

The Treasury is (once again) said to be considering cutting pensions tax relief

www.telegraph.co.uk

Pensions are tricky, yes wealthy individuals do regards pensions as a means for avoiding tax, but it's not in the State's interest to put anyone (including wealthy people) off paying money into their pension pots.

Someone may be earning over £85k today, but if they are (say) in their forties, there's no guarantee that when they reach retirement age they will have saved enough out of their wages in order to not become a burden on the State - people's circumstances can change.

Over the past 20 years consecutive governments have reduced both the amount that can be paid into a pension fund in any given year, and the total life-time amount that can be accumulated, and that's fair.

But eliminating the full tax benefit on any amount for those currently earning over 85k, is a dangerous move that may end-up costing the State far more in the longer run.

By all means, limit/reduce the tax benefit on pensions, but let everyone pay a basic amount into their pension funds tax-free. We do want everyone to have a pension fund, including those who are (currently) wealthy.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Pensions are tricky, yes wealthy individuals do regards pensions as a means for avoiding tax, but it's not in the State's interest to put anyone (including wealthy people) off paying money into their pension pots.

Someone may be earning over £85k today, but if they are (say) in their forties, there's no guarantee that when they reach retirement age they will have saved enough out of their wages in order to not become a burden on the State - people's circumstances can change.

Over the past 20 years consecutive governments have reduced both the amount that can be paid into a pension fund in any given year, and the total life-time amount that can be accumulated, and that's fair.

But eliminating the full tax benefit on any amount for those currently earning over 85k, is a dangerous move that may end-up costing the State far more in the longer run.

By all means, limit/reduce the tax benefit on pensions, but let everyone pay a basic amount into their pension funds tax-free. We do want everyone to have a pension fund, including those who are (currently) wealthy.

I can’t see why everything isn’t on the table now; why not tax those with whopping pensions? Or with more than one property? A big tax on inheritance? Well off old people should pay their fair share, no? After all, we’ve done this to help save people like them?

If, in the aftermath of this period, it ends up being like the banking crisis of 2008 where it’s the average Joe that gets it whereas those with money end up even richer (which it’s looking like already) then if you think the lurch to the Right with Trump and Brexit was bad, you’ll be amazed at how this will end up blowing up big style.

 

[ChipChop]

Is there any evidence that Whitty & Vallance's plans were specifically formulated based on the assumption of asymptomatic transmission? Until such evidence is produced, it remains a supposition.

And, again, what is the connection between 'natural antibody immunity' and 'asymptomatic transmission'?

Someone who has natural immunity either through the infection - recovery- antibody production process or a pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection to one of the family of RNA viruses known as coronaviruses may not require an artificial means of gaining immunity. A vaccine.

The UK Government has ordered more vaccine shots than there are citizens in the UK. This demonstrates they consider everyone to be potentially infected despite no efforts being taken to carry out testing for SARS CoV-2 infectivity or immunity via blood tests which would indicate the true levels of existing community immunity prior to the release of a vaccine. This blinkered approach assumes asymptomatic transmission to be a factor in this health crisis.

Natural antibody immunity encompasses the strategies the body employs to defend itself from infection.

Roitt's Essential Immunology, 13th Edition

Roitts Essential Immunology - the textbookof choice for students and instructors of immunology worldwide Roitts Essential Immunology clearly explains the key principles needed by medical and health sciences students, from the basis of immunity to clinical applications. A brand new introduction...

www.wiley.com

Asymptomatic transmission is the notion of someone who is healthy and well in fact being infected with a virus and being capable of passing it to another human and hence being part of the chain of infection that enables the spread of a virus. Hence masks for the healthy and well. Social distancing for the healthy and well. Quarantine for the healthy and well.

The Wuhan study demonstrates asymptomatic transmission is highly unlikely. Policy should change as the pathology of SARS-CoV-2 develops.

 

[Dryce]

I can’t see why everything isn’t on the table now; why not tax those with whopping pensions?

You mean teachers, firemen, police, doctors, and civil servants? Oh yes .... and judges.

Real fairness in the pension world means looking at (a) years required to build a pension and early retirement options (b) the factoring in of the risk faced those in private schemes or funded public schemes vs those in unfunded schemes (c) equivalent level of employer contribution when it comes to pay and taxation.

And guess which sectors have been protected by government salaries and government guaranteed pensions during the pandemic.

The term 'moral hazard' comes to mind.

 

[Swotty]

From the outset SAGE (no immunologists/ virologists present) and the modelling of the theoretical physicist (not an immunologist) Neil Ferguson have worked from the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 is a totally new (novel) virus. They therefore assume that no pre-existing community immunity exists. Hence the worldwide coordinated response of suppression until vaccination through physical interventions (lockdown, masks & distancing).

SARS-CoV-2 is a Coronavirus, which are a related group of RNA viruses that cause disease in mammals and birds. Pre-exisiting community immunity already exists for Coronaviruses. That is why the vast majority of deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2 are from people with weak immune systems (75+years old with 2 or more comorbities) who are unable to resist infection through natural antibody/ t cell production. It is this production of antibodies that neutralizes or eliminates antigens or pathogens. This piece of the pathology of SARS-CoV-2 is now known.

With the new Wuhan asymptomatic antibody study another piece of pathology is also known. Asymptomatic spreading of this virus is almost non existent and when asymptomatic cases are identified the subjects have all tested as not being infectious. Yet governments worldwide still persist with suppression until vaccination policies based on the assumption that no pre-existing community immunity exists. Ignoring the known pathology of this virus.

I admire your persistence, CC. You are spot on with your assessment.

I sense more and more folk are questioning the rationale behind this and other govts' response to what is basically another 'flu which seems to target the old and those with comorbidities. Not just on this forum, but across the internet.

The logic and science do not add up. The question is .... why? C*ck-up or design?

Questioning of the official narrative is rapidly being deleted from social media. The question is ... why?

Economies are being destroyed. Is this necessary and ... why?

Cui bono? The Chinese? The New World Order? Govt c*ck up?

Logic and "the science" no longer explain this virus "pandemic", which is anything but.

Unless one looks at the aims of the World Economic Forum and the Gates' Foundation. All there in plain sight.

If these august bodies are pursuing their stated intents, why should anyone worry about that?

Rhetorical question ..... it is for others to make their own mind up, while there is still time.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

You mean teachers, firemen, police, doctors, and civil servants? Oh yes .... and judges.

Real fairness in the pension world means looking at (a) years required to build a pension and early retirement options (b) the factoring in of the risk faced those in private schemes or funded public schemes vs those in unfunded schemes (c) equivalent level of employer contribution when it comes to pay and taxation.

And guess which sectors have been protected by government salaries and government guaranteed pensions during the pandemic.

The term 'moral hazard' comes to mind.

Yes, every single one of them, no-one should be exempt; if you’re retired and have a pension coming in of say £50k a year then why not contribute 10% of that towards the sacrifices people have had to make for the said retirees to leave a few more years?

If the working population and their children are having to pay for the Covid financial catastrophe then why shouldn’t those being paid thousands upon thousands a year from their historically fantastic pensions pay something into the pot too? After all, they’ve benefitted to the tune of their lives for the sacrifices we’re having to make, the least they could do is chip in...

Or are they exempt?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I admire your persistence, CC. You are spot on with your assessment.

I sense more and more folk are questioning the rationale behind this and other govts' response to what is basically another 'flu which seems to target the old and those with comorbidities. Not just on this forum, but across the internet.

The logic and science do not add up. The question is .... why? C*ck-up or design?

Questioning of the official narrative is rapidly being deleted from social media. The question is ... why?

Economies are being destroyed. Is this necessary and ... why?

Cui bono? The Chinese? The New World Order? Govt c*ck up?

Logic and "the science" no longer explain this virus "pandemic", which is anything but.

Unless one looks at the aims of the World Economic Forum and the Gates' Foundation. All there in plain sight.

If these august bodies are pursuing their stated intents, why should anyone worry about that?

Rhetorical question ..... it is for others to make their own mind up, while there is still time.

What should we do if we see the light?

 

[markjay]

I can’t see why everything isn’t on the table now; why not tax those with whopping pensions? Or with more than one property? A big tax on inheritance? Well off old people should pay their fair share, no? After all, we’ve done this to help save people like them?

If, in the aftermath of this period, it ends up being like the banking crisis of 2008 where it’s the average Joe that gets it whereas those with money end up even richer (which it’s looking like already) then if you think the lurch to the Right with Trump and Brexit was bad, you’ll be amazed at how this will end up blowing up big style.

The devil is in the detail.

Taxing an empty second property is one thing, but taxing all second properties can have unintended consequences - there are many people who own a second property as a source of income, I.e. via buy-to-let schemes, and taxing these (on top of the income tax already charged) could make the entire business unprofitable resulting in reduction of rental accommodations. Now you may think that renting flats and houses is a bad idea anyway, but even so it merits its own discussion rather than introducing radical changes to the housing market as a byproduct of a new tax policy.

Taxing 'whopping pensions' is fine, as long as the basic principle of allowing anyone to save a certain amount in a tax-free pension fund isn't undermined.

Inheritance tax is another matter, it's an odd tax that doesn't even exist in many other countries, personally I object to it as a matter of principle, but that's a separate discussion. Wealthy people currently avoid it altogether BTW by setting-up Trusts, not sure how this can be tackled anyway.

By 'Wealthy old people paying their fair share' I am assuming you mean to say that wealthy old people should be paying more than anyone else? So those over 75 not culled by COVID-19 should pay a survival tax?

Personally I would concentrate on collecting more from those businesses making profits at this time, rather than on various individuals. Online sellers, courier/delivery companies, video conferencing providers, Cloud services providers, etc - in short, anyone who saw a 400% increase in business this year, like some of my customers selling online did - etc.

But ultimately there's a huge amount of debt to be paid back, and I don't think there's a magic formula to achieve this without everyone sharing the burden, rich and poor alike.

 

[190]

On the topic of pensions mentioned above, besides the possible hit on high rate tax payers which some here will lose no sleep over, there is an another reform in the offing which may hit anyone with a company pension and that's the move from Retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index which is generally lower. Many company pensions in payment (including mine) have annual increases linked to the RPI and will therefore receive lower increases under CPI.

Not complaining, just pointing out what's coming in under the radar.

Private pensions to be hit by change to inflation measure – Daily Business

 

[Deleted member 37751]

By 'Wealthy old people paying their fair share' I am assuming you mean to say that wealthy old people should be paying more than anyone else? So those over 75 not culled by COVID-19 should pay a survival tax?

Why not? We’ve all got to make sacrifices haven’t we? Why should those who we helped to “save” not pay towards the recovery? Bit selfish isn’t it?

But ultimately there's a huge amount of debt to be paid back, and I don't think there's a magic formula to achieve this without everyone sharing the burden, rich and poor alike.

Everything I’ve mentioned wouldn’t normally register as even being sensible but, like I said a few posts back, everything should be on the table; I’m 40, my children are in their teens and we will be paying for this for many many years to come for something that was no danger to me or my family whatsoever. All I’ve heard on this thread over the last 8 months has been “everyone has to make sacrifices, stop being so selfish” yet when it comes to covering the bill, I’m picking up that they don’t want to pay the tab.

So, again, why shouldn’t those who have benefitted *with their lives* pay a bit more towards the after effects?

 

[markjay]

I admire your persistence, CC. You are spot on with your assessment.

I sense more and more folk are questioning the rationale behind this and other govts' response to what is basically another 'flu which seems to target the old and those with comorbidities. Not just on this forum, but across the internet.

The logic and science do not add up. The question is .... why? C*ck-up or design?

Questioning of the official narrative is rapidly being deleted from social media. The question is ... why?

Economies are being destroyed. Is this necessary and ... why?

Cui bono? The Chinese? The New World Order? Govt c*ck up?

Logic and "the science" no longer explain this virus "pandemic", which is anything but.

Unless one looks at the aims of the World Economic Forum and the Gates' Foundation. All there in plain sight.

If these august bodies are pursuing their stated intents, why should anyone worry about that?

Rhetorical question ..... it is for others to make their own mind up, while there is still time.

Just to reiterate... 90% of my posts are aimed at misinformation, false logic, incoherent arguments, misleading quotes from experts, and yes also conspiracy theories.

I do not doubt that there are very many valid arguments against government policies, SAGE, etc, but to me, anyone who feels that they have to make-up fabricated facts in order to get their point of view across, have already lost the argument before it began.

But yes, there's a lot to debate and criticise, I do agree with that.

 

[ChipChop]

Wednesday 25th November CFR is 3.63%
Saturday 21st November CFR was 3.68%
Wednesday18th November CFR was 3.74%
Saturday 14th November CFR was 3.89%
Monday 9th November CFR was 4.11%
Friday 6th November CFR was 4.28%
Tuesday 3rd November CFR was 4.45%
Sunday 1st November CFR was 4.60%
Thursday 29th Oct CFR was 4.85%
Tuesday 27th Oct CFR was 4.94%
Sunday 25th Oct CFR was 5.24%
Tuesday 20th Oct CFR was 5.9%
Friday 16th Oct CFR was 6.3%.
Monday 12th Oct CFR was 6.78%.
Thursday 8th Oct CFR was 7.8%.
Monday 5th Oct CFR was 8.2%.