A couple of 'good news' articles that have been published today. Is this a sign that the tide is turning?

What they DON'T tell you about Covid: Fewer beds taken up than last year, deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts, 95% of fatalities had underlying causes... and how the facts can be twisted to strike fear in our hearts
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8971669/What-DONT-tell-Covid-facts-twisted-strike-fear-hearts.html#comments

What the data say about asymptomatic COVID infections
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

The Daily Mail is a paper that I have often criticised, but I have to hand it to them for their presentations of the real data behind the government's measures. Given their circulation, this will help turn the situation around.

A couple of 'good news' articles that have been published today. Is this a sign that the tide is turning?

What they DON'T tell you about Covid: Fewer beds taken up than last year, deaths a fraction of the grim forecasts, 95% of fatalities had underlying causes... and how the facts can be twisted to strike fear in our hearts
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8971669/What-DONT-tell-Covid-facts-twisted-strike-fear-hearts.html#comments

What the data say about asymptomatic COVID infections
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

The Daily Mail is a paper that I have often criticised, but I have to hand it to them for their presentations of the real data behind the government's measures. Given their circulation, this will help turn the situation around.

I was hoping the SAGE documentary on the BBC on Thursday night would have a big impact but it doesn’t seem that way. I think it was purposely put on at 9pm when many TV viewers were watching I’m a celebrity for a reason.

This is the study that was just published on nature re. Asymptomatic transmission, or the lack of it! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w?fbclid=IwAR31YPP3_7D8Waw3BvvjPNDLoEG3BtIG7WMBjXQBj2SOf_jeumo0J6zM8gY

This is good news.
😀 😀 😀

This is the study that was just published on nature re. Asymptomatic transmission, or the lack of it! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w?fbclid=IwAR31YPP3_7D8Waw3BvvjPNDLoEG3BtIG7WMBjXQBj2SOf_jeumo0J6zM8gY

Only problem with that paper is that the data is from Wuhan and since January I have learnt to consider all data out of China except for very basic clinical data as fraudulent one way or another.

After all it was the basically fraudulent data from the SARs CoV 1 outbreak in 2003 (mainly due to lack of any reliable follow up studies in China as is usual with these outbreaks) that gave us the vastly overstated IFR for SARs CoV 1. Which was the basis of the scientific evidence used as justification for the lockdowns in March. SARs CoV 2 was going to be just like SARs CoV 1.

The IFR was not 2% it was < 0.2%. A very big difference. Which if the Chinese had not done the coverup in 2003 and the WHO etc were not actively complicit in this very deliberate misrepresentation of the data we would have known. It really was not that dangerous. Same kind of risk as from the other general circulation corona-viruses.

Remember the only reason SARs CoV 1 cases disappeared so suddenly in 2003 is that once the cluster outbreaks outside China abated the Chinese government stopped reporting any new cases of the community spread outbreak inside China. So it disappeared , just like that. Which is pretty unique in the history of airborne viral respiratory infection epidemics.