Coronavirus Facts

Summary

The web content discusses the uncertainty and misinformation surrounding the Coronavirus, particularly in relation to the reliability of data from China and its application to outbreaks in other countries.

Abstract

The article "Coronavirus Facts" delves into the complexities and contradictions in the information available about the Coronavirus, especially regarding its severity and the risk factors involved. It critically examines the initial reports suggesting smokers were less susceptible and the subsequent adjustments by health authorities to align with anti-smoking campaigns. The piece also questions the accuracy of Chinese statistics, considering the country's methodological changes in data collection and the potential influence of political and health policy agendas. It highlights the challenges of interpreting data when triage protocols and healthcare system capacities vary, as well as the impact of these factors on reported figures. The article underscores the importance of understanding the nature of the virus and the context in which data is collected and reported, cautioning against direct comparisons of outbreaks in different regions without considering local healthcare dynamics.

Opinions

The article suggests that early claims about smokers being less susceptible to Coronavirus were likely downplayed due to the WHO and governments' anti-tobacco agendas.
It implies that the Chinese figures on Coronavirus cases and fatalities may not be reliable due to changes in data collection methods and potential underreporting.
The content criticizes the use of Chinese data to make assumptions about the virus's impact in other countries, such as South Korea, Iran, and Italy.
The author argues that the application of triage protocols, which prioritize certain age groups and conditions, can significantly affect the reported severity and mortality rates of the virus.
The article points out that the true death toll in December in Wuhan may have been higher than officially reported, indicating a possible cover-up or lack of initial understanding of the virus.
It is suggested that the outbreak may not have been confined to Wuhan from the start, which could have contributed to the spread of the virus.
The author uses the example of a child on a hospital floor in the UK to illustrate how an overwhelmed healthcare system can distort public perception and reporting of health crises.
The piece questions the simplicity of attributing deaths to either the virus or underlying conditions like cancer, highlighting the complexity of determining the actual cause of death in such cases.
The article concludes with a list of previous posts on the topic, suggesting a continuous effort to analyze and report on the evolving situation of the Coronavirus outbreak.

Coronavirus Facts

There is a curious certainty about Coronavirus appearing in recent days.

One sees people asserting, with absolute confidence, that the disease is ‘pretty benign’, it only really kills men, smokers, and boomers.

However, take the issue of smoking. The original reports from China suggested that smokers were less susceptible, and that the most vulnerable group was people who had never smoked. Clearly, this was never going to be allowed by WHO, or indeed many of the governments providing funds, who have programs to stop the consumption of tobacco. Thus in later reports, and indeed in the revised reporting of the original data, smoking was emphasised as a risk factor.

The reason is pretty simple… take a look at this form for conducting a telephone triage of a suspected flu patient, and particularly this…

Now apply that protocol, to the Chinese practice of only counting hospitalised cases in the official figures. And viola, in an overloaded system, you get something that looks like this.

If you go through the articles below you will find numerous links to cases of people who had the virus, but were not admitted to hospital: sometimes being sent home five and six times (after either testing negative, or testing positive but being asymptomatic). Some lived, some died, and others developed what is popularly referred to as the ‘second stage’ involving heart failure…. which accounts for the videos of people keeling over in the street.

One other factor that should be considered is that there are claims that the death toll in December was higher. From memory the official figure is that there were two fatalities in Wuhan during that month. But the unofficial figure is that there were at least fifteen deaths.

It is also alleged that the outbreak was not confined to Wuhan.

The reason for framing the current ‘certainty’ narrative in this context, is that people are using the Chinese figures and claiming that they apply to the outbreaks in South Korea, Iran and Italy. And that somehow Gen Z will be fine (assuming they aren’t sterile) and it is the plague they have dreamed of, that will finally get them on the housing ladder.

To illustrate the point (or over-egg the pudding) during the last UK election a picture appeared in the Mirror of a child on a hospital floor. It caused a fuss for a day or so, and many of the same people currently making all sorts of wild claims about the evils of communism, used that picture to make all sorts of wild claims about evils of socialised health care. On a much smaller scale (Leeds has a population of some 475,000) the reasons for that child being on the hospital floor are pretty much the same, as at the time the area was in the midst of an outbreak of norovirus.

Which was on top of the hospital having to deal with the things hospitals normally have to deal with: car crashes, drunks fighting, cancer, delivering babies, removing verrucas, and people falling off ladders and getting a cucumber wedged up their rectum… etc…

Previous posts…