Are we now claiming they got something right?

People advised to shield in the first wave of the pandemic were five times more likely to die after a confirmed Covid infection than those considered at low risk from the disease, according to research in Scotland.

The study, led by the University of Glasgow, found that efforts to shield the most vulnerable did not prevent substantial levels of infection in the most high-risk groups, with many patients succumbing to the virus.

So the people advised to shield were those who should have shielded, being the more vulnerable?

Be interesting if government actually got something right, wouldn’t it?

The findings raise questions about how effective shielding was in the first wave of the pandemic and show that other measures, from reducing transmission in the community to Covid-safe support at home, are crucial for those most vulnerable to the disease.

“The only way you can protect these people is by stopping them getting infected in the first place because they are such a high-risk group,” said Prof Jill Pell, the director of the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Health and Wellbeing. “You cannot simply dump the responsibility on high-risk people to protect themselves because, as we’ve shown, they cannot protect themselves 100%.”

Ah, no, don;t be silly. They’re looking for someone to blame. The insistence apparently being on a zero infection rate during a pandemic.


20 thoughts on “Are we now claiming they got something right?”

  1. ’… other measures, from reducing transmission in the community…’

    Maybe not being shy about naming the specific ‘communities’ they are talking about here would help..?

  2. Did I perhaps mention previously that when they think you’ve got an infection they do not give you any bloody treatment? Combine that with when they think you might get infected they don’t give even advice on boosting your immune system or any prophylactic treatment either. Basically, you’re on your own. Envy of the world, apparently.

  3. Oh but Rhoda, they do treat you. One gets paracetamol. Then pumped full of oxygen which probably makes it worse. Then the patient is “treated” with midazolam.

  4. P.S. Telling people to “shield” is all very well. Did they tell them to ventilate their space vigorously?

  5. dearime, great link, but the fundemental problem with what that guy is saying is that using established treatments for covid meant TPTB could not authorise the use of the miracle ‘vaccines’ and there would definitely not have been trebles all round.

    How many have died / suffered needlessly?

    On the day of reckoning there will be a shortage of piano wire and lampposts…….

  6. I have read your link, dearieme, and it is illustrative of the way the medical establishment is locking out initiative. This chap’s treatment is for cases which have become serious. My main concern is for first treatment after a positive test but the same lockout applies. Paracetamol possibly makes it worse, suppressing beneficial fever. Aspirin in moderation might be better by thinning the blood to resist clotting. Cheap easily available inhaled steroids. HCQ and zinc. Ivermectin. All safe, none given. And this is treatment at home. It could be delivered at your isolating location.

    All the trials of those treatments, to be a ‘proper trial’, are conducted in hospitals. They have by then missed their best chance to work. On of the HCQ trials used a known-to-be-dangerous does, without zinc, at a stage where its effect on viral replication was no longer relevant. It can only work at an early stage. IVM ditto. The aim of those trials can only be to dismiss the drugs as useless by organising the trial so they can’t work.

    (I am not an expert on this stuff. Check it all for yourself.)

  7. It is no surprise that Pharma companies did not sponsor any trials of existing drug treatments. But neither did governments, despite being on the hook for the consequential losses. As dearieme’s link above, and many others, show, simple treatments have profound effects. Just look at the duration of hospital stays, for proof.
    South Africa even went so far as to forbid doctors prescribing ivermectin.

    Reluctant as I am to consider a conspiracy it certainly looks like a medical putsch. Senior members of SAGE have considerable financial interest (shares and options) in a vaccine-only approach.

  8. “Reluctant as I am to consider a conspiracy it certainly looks like a medical putsch.”

    When asked a month or so ago what had taken place throughout this, Dr Robert Malone diplomatically described it as: “Regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical sector”.

    If you then listen to Dr David Martin, he confirms that but then appears to provide evidence (from the patent record) that it goes a whole lot further?

  9. The stupid bint from Glasgow seems to be suggesting that EVERYONE should have been banged up since March 2020 in order to prevent the deaths of a number of already unwell people, as they could not be saved by a £300 billion intermittent shutdown of the nation.

    These people are literally fucking insane.

    Still, I have given up caring about COVID. The next and most important big fight is against the ‘green’ lunacy that Bozo the Clown is trying to inflict on us.

  10. We started taking Vit D, Zinc, and Vit C in mid-Feb 2020. Seemed a sensible precaution; cheap and with virtually no downside. Why I had dithered for weeks after realising that the problem was nasty I cannot remember.

    I also started eating the occasional Brazil nut – for the selenium, you know. God knows where I picked up that idea.

    But treatment if I fell ill – there I am entirely in the hands of the medical cartel. I’m grateful to Dr Andrew Bamji for attempting to penetrate the walls, or thick skulls, of that cartel, even though his efforts have been frustrated.

  11. Actually, the study sounds fine to me. It simply looked at the effects of making that shielding request, and found that this was not very effective because most vulnerable people couldn’t shield 100%. And that shielding the very vulnerable didn’t lower the load on the NHS much, because there were so few of them.

    Both useful findings, I should say…..

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    I play golf with someone who has a suppressed immune system. He was advised to shield and followed the advice assiduously until it was lifted. He said he wouldn’t do it again, he would just take precautions and get on with live because life is for living.

    I imagine that a number of people advised to shield decided not to either at the start or during the process for a similar reason. If you’re already on notice of imminent death through any number of means would you want to spend what could be your last months locked away?

    We’ll never know how those that were shielding and died caught the virus, but as we’re finding out now, short of living in complete isolation in the middle of nowhere there’s no hiding.

  13. Do we have:
    “It’s raining a storm out there, shield yourself so you don’t get wet, eg use an umberella”
    or do we have:
    “It’s raining a storm out there, everybody stay at home”.

    Actually, it’s worse, we currently have people insisting:
    “Everybody stay at home until it can be guaranteed it will never ever rain ever again”

  14. Well,it seems we now havea metric for how fucking stupid you can be, while not being Ritchie, and still be appointed a professor.

  15. “People advised to shield in the first wave of the pandemic were five times more likely to die after a confirmed Covid infection”. That doesn’t mean what it appears to. It only covers those who caught the disease. Maybe those who didn’t catch it were less likely to die (unlikely) or much more likely to die (plausible) if they had caught it.

    “efforts to shield the most vulnerable did not prevent substantial levels of infection in the most high-risk groups” But maybe it greatly reduced the number who caught it compared to what it would have been otherwise (plausible, if the groups were more likely to catch it than the general population, given the same exposure).

  16. There’s a doctor testified to the Texas state hearings that the lack of treatment amounted to negligence
    Basically what’s the point of being tested if a positive result means lock yourself away for a coupe of weeks and hope you don’t get ill.
    When I was admitted for Covid my wife who was vaccinated was told off for driving me to the hospital, the irony being she’d previously worked in the ICU ward

  17. Ivermectin in India, where some stated used IVM and some banned its use.

    “In India, the use of Ivermectin has been awe-inspiring. Within weeks of ICMR and AIIMS instituting Ivermectin on April 20, 2021, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh cases were down 99%. Goa famously chose Ivermectin in all adults over 18, and their cases are down 95% [4195 to 215].

    Goa’s deaths peaked at 75 and are now 5, down 93%. See the JHU CSSE database. However, just as publicly, the Indian State of Tamil Nadu rejected Ivermectin and vowed to use Remdesivir instead.

    They paid the price with the highest number of daily COVID-19 cases in India and excess deaths that continue to this day.

    As of June 26, 2021, there were 1258 deaths in India with a population of 1.36 billion. Tamil Nadu, with a population of 1/20 of India, saw 148 of these deaths, about 1/9 of India’s. This amounts to 80 excess deaths on June 26, 2021 [Predicted 1/20 of 1248 = 68. Actual = 148].

    The question that emerges from Dr. Lawrie’s convincing meta-analysis and common sense when looking at Ivermectin’s massive benefit in those Indian States that used it is why any nation or state would want to repeat Tamil Nadu’s tragic error, and reject Ivermectin? Why would any area on earth wish to forego a treatment that works so well and is so safe?

    Uttar Pradesh, a state with 200 million inhabitants, an area that uses Ivermectin, saw only 62 deaths. Uttar Pradesh, with 1/7 the population of India, did not experience 1/7 of the 1248 death toll, which would have been 178 lives [1/7 x 1248 = 178]. Instead, the Ivermectin saved at least 116 lives [Predicted deaths of 178 less actual deaths of 62 = 116 lives saved] just on June 26, 2021.

    Ivermectin reduces death in COVID-19 by a substantial percentage and with virtually no risk and minimal cost. But, do we truly need more studies on Ivermectin while the Delta Variant rages on and vaccine resistance grows greater by the day? Do we need more studies on a drug that the world’s very best evidence – the meta-analysis – has proven reduces death by 62 to 91% and is safer than most vitamins?

    Why would we require a second-rate form of evidence, another RCT, when the gold-standard meta-analysis has already been published?

    We are asked to suspend our common sense while more people die and while Oxford and McMaster, both funded by the Gates (Vaccine) Foundation, make us wait on the result of another contrived-to-fail and forced study.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *