The Covid hospitalization numbers published are wrong.

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (128 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 10 months ago

    At least two hospitals are coming clean.  They are admitting something I've been aware of since the beginning of the pandemic.  People are being admitted to the hospital to treat a certain condition.  If they test positive for Covid, the reason for their admission is listed as Covid.  That is why you have people with gunshot wounds being listed as Covid patients. 

    This is just TWO hospitals.  I can only imagine how many other hospitals are doing the exact same thing.  This means what you've been told about the Covid hospitalization rates is bogus.  What would be the motivation to do such a thing?


    “Ontario (Canada) Admits 50% of “COVID” Hospitalizations Not From COVID, Death Count May Also Be Misleading”

    https://thepulse.one/2022/01/05/ontario … ing/?utm_s

    “Over 40% of NYC’s COVID-infected hospital patients admitted for other reasons”

    https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/many-nyc- … r-reasons/

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      In Canada 71% hospitized patients for covid are vaccinated.  Now the shoe is on the other foot vaxxers. We can banned them from most social events and activities. Then quarantine on ivermectin, vitamins of D and C. Pull their careers and Jobs from underneath them. Take away their children for being vaccinated. Banned them for taking out date or online dating.

      Just kidding could not imagine being that cruel.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      This has been going on from day one and still is. The virus is so obviously becoming more and more political. The Democrats are using it as a "Look over here", "don't look at all the big ass problems that are occurring from the day Biden walked into the White House.

      Plus IMO , this administration is kissing p to the Pharma companies for upcoming election cash.  Its' page one in their playbook of ploys.

      Thank God more seems to be seeing through all the BS. Omicron bit Joe in the butt, and he has lost his TRUMP card...

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        You are absolutely right.  There are hundreds of articles of people dying from everything from a gunshot wound to blunt force trauma after being in a car accident and having their cause of death listed as Covid on their death certificates. 

        It has been political from day one.  Unfortunately, those on the left don't seem to grasp or understand this reality.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          It was made political, and still is being used. However, from what I have picked up on social media is just your sentiment 'that COVID is political, and many don't care to buy into it any longer.

    3. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      First, to extrapolate data from two hospitals out to thousands is misleading, particularly since one of them is in Canada. 
      The Post (again not always a credible source) simply stated :

      "New statistics show that more than 40 percent of the state’s hospitalized coronavirus-infected patients were admitted for “non-COVID reasons”
      Meaning that  their  main reason for being admitted to the hospital was something other than covid while they were still covid positive. 
      I don't see this as over inflating covid numbers?

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        There is a difference between being admitted to the hospital for a gunshot wound and being admitted for Covid.  The scam comes in the reason for the hospital admission.  If you are admitted to a hospital because of a gunshot wound, you should not be listed as having been hospitalized because of Covid.  It inflates the Covid numbers for whatever reason.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          So you're saying that anyone who comes into the hospital emergency room for a reason other than covid symptoms, shouldn't be tested for covid at all? And If they are it should be listed nowhere on their record?  It should be kept a secret? I'm not sure what kind of hospital that would be. That's like saying I enter the hospital emergency room  with heart problems and through my blood work they find out that I'm in renal failure. Should that not be listed on my chart?  I'd  venture  to say that most doctors want a complete medical workup on a patient to fully understand what's going on. This whole conspiracy of hospitals purposely inflating covid numbers  just doesn't make sense.
          I think it's already been clearly shown that the reason for hospitalization is chosen by the admitting physician based on a preponderance of symptoms. Again, someone entering an emergency room because of a gunshot to whatever part of their body would be admitted due to that EVEN if they received a positive covid test. What doctor would give a primary diagnosis of covid for admission when they're suffering gunshot wounds?

    4. tsmog profile image76
      tsmogposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      After some research I see one thing that must first be considered. Both cases and death counts are per State guidelines, though the CDC offers guidance. The CDC guideline for death is at the link below. And following that a link to a page with a video of how to do it. It is plan to me that, first, it is the doctor/coroner that makes the determination.

      CDC Guideline for death
      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

      Video explaining how to fill out death certificate where covid is involved leading to how they count covid deaths
      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding … orting.htm

  2. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 10 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15848670.jpg

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Oh yes, this really is very much the truth.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Wonder if that is vaccine arrow. Since hospitals are filled with vaccinated covid patients

  3. hard sun profile image80
    hard sunposted 10 months ago

    Yes. Good information. I have links somewhere to articles, and local news stations of even automobile accidents being put down as COVID. The coroners admit to this. It is not a secret. It is just not talked about much among the traditional media channels.

    Fauci even states that children in the hospital with broken legs who test positive for COVID, are listed in the COVID hospitalization statistics.

    Incessant fear mongering keeps the agenda, and the money, flowing.

    I am starting to feel an obligation to at least attempt to dampen the fear and the demonization of the unvaccinated.

    https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/
    Defeat The Mandates DC

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      It is difficult to not believe this isn't a coordinated effort to keep people afraid so they can be more easily controlled by the government.  It's incredible the government actions that have been done.  The skewed numbers, the mandates, the inability to admit the vaccine isn't working as promised.  It all stinks.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        A coordinated effort by whom? At what level? The White House? The CDC? Who or what group do you propose is coordinating this effort?  And the end game is so that the government can control people better?  For what reason is government trying to exert control over people? I mean what do they want to achieve in your mind?  It's very difficult to wrap my head around these conspiracy theories but I'll offer one of my own for you.
        Many believe that there is a coordinated effort on the part of Republicans to hinder progress on controlling the virus. Why? Because they can use it to make the current administration look bad. Sadly as Republicans have railed against vaccines and mitigations they have allowed their own base to suffer and die in large numbers.  I'm not saying I buy into any sort of conspiracy theory but what comes around goes around.
        And as far as mandates go we've always had mandates. They're the standard array of childhood vaccinations that school districts across the country require. Some allowing exemptions and some not. No difference.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          "For what reason is government trying to exert control over people? I mean what do they want to achieve in your mind?"

          You either haven't studied enough history or need to study some more.  Start with the ancient rulers and work your way up to communist leaders.  The more things change the more they stay the same.

          Why the fake Covid numbers?  What is the motivation behind such a thing?

          Why isn't information such as this in the mainstream media?

          "New Scientific Study finds at least 400,000 Americans may have died due to the Covid-19 Vaccines"

          https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/12/31/study … -vaccines/

          It appears the information about the vaccine is being very tightly controlled for SOME reason

          "Many believe that there is a coordinated effort on the part of Republicans to hinder progress on controlling the virus. Why? Because they can use it to make the current administration look bad."

          Yeah, this is pretty funny.  Since it's painfully obvious countries all over the world have tried to control the virus and failed.  So, that's worth a laugh.  The Republicans don't have to do anything to make the biden administration look bad.  The biden administration looks bad just by simply being the biden administration.

          "Sadly as Republicans have railed against vaccines and mitigations they have allowed their own base to suffer and die in large numbers."

          I think some facts are in order.  What Republicans?  President Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican party, and he is very pro-vaccine.
          He's been booed by crowds more than once.  The vaccine doesn't work as promised.  Vaccinated people still can get Covid, pass Covid on and die from Covid. I know someone who had all his vaccine shots and a booster...he's only 40 and almost died from Covid.  I like the "allowed" people to die.  Don't know if you are aware of this but the Democrats are running the show on this.  Maybe in the mind of a leftist they're making it possible for Republicans to die.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            The Daily Expose UK  are infamous for creating FAKE NEWS to generate page views and money.
            https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252 … 2F9JE74M-2

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Ah, but the links they provide are to actual studies.  You may want to look a little more into it.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Public health researcher Devon Greyson said: "The claims are fully false."

                Greyson, an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia's School of Population and Public Health, explained that “the fatal flaw in the math is the lack of an appropriate denominator."

                The publication attempted to calculate the death rate for those who received the shots by dividing the number of vaccinated Delta variant deaths by the number of immunized people who contracted the highly infectious Delta variant.

                The correct denominator would have been the total vaccinated population of England -- a much larger number, Greyson said. Similarly, to calculate the rate of death for unvaccinated people, the denominator should be the total number of unvaccinated people.
                Valen Johnson, head of the statistics department at Texas A&M University, agreed with Greyson's analysis. Johnson emphasized that the denominator should have been the total vaccinated or unvaccinated populations, not the Delta cases in each category.

                The comparisons in the article are "inappropriate," he said, characterizing the calculations as "very misleading.

                This analysis by the Expose has been debunked over and over along with most everything they've put out.
                Media bias fact check calls them a Pseudoscience website based on promoting false and misleading information regarding Covid-19.
                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-expose/

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Ah, but who fact checks the fact checkers?

                  Nothing copied and pasted by you has anything to do with the false reporting of the Covid figures by the American government.  I have absolutely no idea what you posted as you did not include a link to it for some reason.  Why would you not include a link?

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this
                  2. hard sun profile image80
                    hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    The likes of Politifact are a joke. Social media companies use them as a short cut to fact checking in order to satisfy Dems in Washington. I contract for a company right now. it is painfully obvious that the fact checking is now just a way to provide cover.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        +

        1. hard sun profile image80
          hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Klaus Schwab, in The Great Reset, states that we should treat COVID as we did the world wars because they allow for more governmental control in all aspects.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I have a friend who is pretty far up the political food chain.  He wonders if the control the governments around the world are executing over Covid are simply a test to see how far they can go before their populations start to reject their ideas.  Could it be that calculated?

            1. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Good question. I am not sure. I do know that many world leaders are spouting the same ideology, using similar, or even the same phrasing.

              I would certainly not cast aside your friend's wondering. The extent of human  corruption and the coordination in that corruption are staggering when confronted with them. I've seen it personally on lower levels of government. Things that I would not have thought possible before. It seems some will take away a person's freedoms for most any reason.

              We may never know the extent of coordination here. But, I know that we can resist the erosion of freedom and the onset of mass illogical group think.

              The "it could never happen here" argument is over in my mind.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "The "it could never happen here" argument is over in my mind."

                I completely agree with you.  This Covid situation, and how it has been handled, has revealed who believes in having an authoritarian style government and who does not.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image74
                Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                State, banks and drugs has been doing this divide and conquer  since the world war one. It's just this grand world order is happening every 80 year cycle. like World war 2 , before that US civil war and so on. We get over it guicker, because the world is more of our family now. Adopted Big Brother is nothing but a greedy bully.

    2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Your statement about Dr fauci is misleading. Here is what was actually said in the correct context.
      "Speaking to MSNBC's Ayman Mohyeldin, who was filling in for Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night, Fauci suggested that some of the children currently being treated at medical facilities were hospitalized WITH COVID as opposed to "BECAUSE of COVID."

      He added that some children who are currently listed as being in hospital with COVID may actually be receiving treatment for "a broken leg or appendicitis," rather than for a severe reactions to the virus.
      Meaning that when they are hospitalized the reason for hospitalization is listed as the condition they are being treated for. Of course some maybe covet positive at the same time but it is not listed as their reason for hospitalization.

      1. hard sun profile image80
        hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        "He added that some children who are currently listed as being in hospital with COVID may actually be receiving treatment for "a broken leg or appendicitis," rather than for a severe reactions to the virus."

        No, that is exactly what I meant. No misleading here. A kid can be in the hospital because she broke her leg is listed as being in the hospital with COVID if they test positive for COVID. I've watched the clip more than once. He said what he said and it has been clear that they count these cases as COVID hospitalizations. Unless you are stating it is opposite day.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          That is clearly not what he said. The reason for hospitalization would be for the broken leg, not covid.  Just because the child is hospitalized and it is discovered that they have covid It is not necessarily always the reason listed for their hospitalization. Whatever they are being actually treated for is the reason for hospitalization.

          1. hard sun profile image80
            hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Google it. Even MSM agrees with me here.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I don't see any sort of reliable source this information. The following article examines the studies that supposedly support overestimation of COVID hospitalizations along with commentary from a doctor.
              https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-co … -inflated/

              "I will note that both hospital systems where I work, New York University and the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation, require clinicians to distinguish symptomatic from asymptomatic cases from the moment the test is ordered"
              Per my discussions with epidemiologists at both hospitals, this is so admissions can be categorized as either “due to COVID” or “COVID positive, admission due to non-COVID reasons.  So, unlike the two California hospitals in this study, other (larger) hospital systems do make an effort to distinguish between incidental and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections."

              1. hard sun profile image80
                hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                "Per my discussions with epidemiologists at both hospitals, this is so admissions can be categorized as either “due to COVID” or “COVID positive, admission due to non-COVID reasons.  So, unlike the two California hospitals in this study, other (larger) hospital systems do make an effort to distinguish between incidental and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections."

                And, I totally believe this and have heard Fauci say the same thing and go on to say they are all COVID cases. It is  very clear that the data presented to the CDC , and that is reported to us as "COVID hospitalizations" include any person hospitalized that has tested positive for COVID.

                What I am saying, and what I believe OP meant here really is very simple and very clear. No amount of twisting and turning can change this. Fauci makes it very clear that this is the case.

                I am not making a case for over reporting. I am simply stating how they are reported. If you think that is over reporting, then, well.

              2. hard sun profile image80
                hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica … ar-AASxEFf

                Will this convince you?  It took a very quick Google search. What we are saying is true according to Fauci AND Walensky and MSM.

                "In late December, for example, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky raised eyebrows when she suggested that “many children are hospitalized with covid as opposed to because of covid.” She was accused in some quarters of downplaying pediatric hospitalizations, but Anthony S. Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, made almost identical comments regarding children. A recent New York Times article cited several New York hospitals that reported that 50 to 65 percent of their hospitalized covid patients actually had incidental covid."

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  My issue was with the original poster trying to take the above comments as supporting evidence of some kind that hospitals are purposefully inflating numbers by using it as the primary diagnosis for a hospital admission.

                  1. hard sun profile image80
                    hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    That makes more sense to me. There is an argument to be made that hospitals would never purposely inflate numbers. However, I think that argument is more in the context of increased money for COVID patients.

                    If one were to say that these "incidental" numbers are resulting in inflated COVID patients, then one does not have to state that hospitals are doing anything purposely.

                    It seems the hospitals are simply reporting to the CDC and that agency is the one putting all these patients, "from COVID" and "with COVID" in the same basket.

                    I say the CDC should have been making this  from and with distinction very clear in the final numbers from the very beginning.

        2. hard sun profile image80
          hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          "As more hospitals report spiking cases of Covid, confusion is mounting over what should actually count as a hospitalization. Right now, any patient who ends up testing positive is counted, and doctors are calling on the CDC to be more specific."

          https://news.yahoo.com/defining-covid-h … 39871.html

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Child walks into the emergency room with appendicitis. Child is most likely given a covid test at the same time. Because that's what we do now. You really believe that doctors are listing the primary reason for hospitalization in this case as covid? Why?
            Going along with that reasoning,  this child ,  presenting with appendicitis and a positive covid test at the same would be admitted for hospitalization with a Covid diagnosis? How would the hospital recoup any of its money for surgery? And everything else that goes along with treating appendicitis when they've listed covid as the reason that the child is there? Maybe going out on a limb here but I believe that the treatment given must match the diagnosis and reason for hospitalization.  This just doesn't fly whatsoever.

            1. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You are not listening, or reading what is being presented to you. I don't even understand how you can argue the point here.

              Yes, as the video states, they are being counted as COVID cases. Does not fly, I agree. Tell that to the CDC.

            2. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              They are listed as both COVID cases and whatever case they are actually in the hospital for. This is not complicated.

            3. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I am not getting into the argument about Covid attribution or numbers manipulation, but relative to your thought; I think hospitals can treat and bill for whatever immediate need they find—not just the reason for admission.

              I think that child would be treated for both appendicitis and Covid diagnoses. And legitimately billed for each.

              As a note, I have seen claims that hospitals receive additional Federal money for Covid patient admittances. Maybe someone knows if that is true?

              GA

              1. hard sun profile image80
                hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Exactly on this point GA. I know hospitals receive additional funds for Medicare patients. I can find a link. Not sure about other insurances.

                USA today Fact checks medicare as true
                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 000638001/

                1. hard sun profile image80
                  hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  It also looks like the government will pay uninsured patients at the same enhance rate as Medicare patients. While this is no proof that numbers are being manipulated, as factcheck.org is clear to point out, it seems to provide decent motivation for such manipulation.

                  "It is true, however, that the government will pay more to hospitals for COVID-19 cases in two senses: By paying an additional 20% on top of traditional Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients during the public health emergency, and by reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured patients with the disease (at that enhanced Medicare rate)" https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospi … ath-count/

                2. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks.

                  GA

  4. Pamela99 profile image91
    Pamela99posted 10 months ago

    I saw a report this morning about the incorrect number of children hospitalized with Covid. I find it frustrating as we simply do not know the truth.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      it's the old hand and eye shell game.

  5. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 10 months ago

    It could be starting in the state of Washington.

    Look at this article and click on the link.  What the story claims is completely true.

    "It is possible that the Washington State Board of Health is considering amending state law in the near future to allow residents as young as five years old to be held in “internment camps” to adhere to the state’s experimental vaccine mandate for not complying with it.

    As part of a proposed revision to WAC 246-100-040, the measure would allow local health officers in their discretion” to “issue an emergency decontamination order under the Communicable and Certain Other Diseases Act.” According to the new law, local health officials would be allowed at the sole discretion of the district health official to “issue an emergency detention order causing an individual or group of individuals to be immediately detained for the purpose of isolation or quarantine Bill Authorizes ‘Strike Force’ To ‘Involuntarily Detain’ Unvaccinated Families"

    https://republicbrief.com/bill-authoriz … -families/

    1. hard sun profile image80
      hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Wow. "Fact checkers" will likely latch onto something like this statement to ensure it is at least labeled misinformation on social media:

      The BOH claimed that the agenda item regarding these changes "…is related to rulemaking on chapter 246-100 WAC it is scoped only to the implementation of ESHB 1551 (Chapter 76, Laws of 2020) and does not include changes to isolation and quarantine policies."

      Even if that statement is true, they are not denying criminalizing not getting a vaccine, which is bad enough. And, the statement may be a word game. I'll have to look into this further.

      https://republicbrief.com/bill-authoriz … -families/

      1. hard sun profile image80
        hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        dang it..here is correct link. It's not letting me edit for some reason..

        https://thepostmillennial.com/wa-board- … alth-order


        This same link also states this: "A person who violates or fails to comply with a health order issued under RCW 70.24.024 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable by confinement until the order has been complied with or terminated, up to a maximum period of three hundred sixty-four days."

        Sounds like a detention camp. Or jail. Same thing.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      https://youtu.be/JSNgV_CAm_c

      Here is what JP awake says about high tech guy.

      1. hard sun profile image80
        hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        That about sums it up nicely. Clear as mud. Except, you cannot say anything you want about vegetables.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          if they can turn us into vegetables, they screw themselve, they don't like anything healthy.

    3. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      This is not true. this lie spread with omicron-like rapidity, fueled by misinformation from anti-vaccine activists, some conservative radio hosts and at least three Republican congressional candidates.

      The Seattle Times: Protesters descend on WA Board of Health after misinformation about vaccine plans goes viral.
      https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne … gn=RSS_all

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Ah, but this IS true.  Here is a copy of the amendment to the state law that is being considered.  This is, by the way, public record.

        "WAC 246-100-040
        Procedures for isolation or quarantine.
        (1) At his or her sole discretion, a local health officer may issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, or may petition the superior court ex parte for an order to take the person or group of persons into involuntary detention for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, provided that he or she:
        (a) Has first made reasonable efforts, which shall be documented, to obtain voluntary compliance with requests for medical examination, testing, treatment, counseling, vaccination, decontamination of persons or animals, isolation, quarantine, and inspection and closure of facilities, or has determined in his or her professional judgment that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
        (b) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons is, or is suspected to be, infected with, exposed to, or contaminated with a communicable disease or chemical, biological, or radiological agent that could spread to or contaminate others if remedial action is not taken; and
        (c) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons would pose a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others if not detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine.
        (2) A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.
        (3) If a local health officer orders the immediate involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine:
        (a) The emergency detention order shall be for a period not to exceed ten days.
        (b) The local health officer shall issue a written emergency detention order as soon as reasonably possible and in all cases within twelve hours of detention that shall specify the following:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine commences;
        (iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
        (vi) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (c) The local health officer shall provide copies of the written emergency detention order to the person or group of persons detained or, if the order applies to a group and it is impractical to provide individual copies, post copies in a conspicuous place in the premises where isolation or quarantine has been imposed.
        (d) Along with the written order, and by the same means of distribution, the local health officer shall provide the person or group of persons detained with the following written notice:
        NOTICE: You have the right to petition the superior court for release from isolation or quarantine in accordance with WAC 246-100-055. You have a right to legal counsel. If you are unable to afford legal counsel, then counsel will be appointed for you at government expense and you should request the appointment of counsel at this time. If you currently have legal counsel, then you have an opportunity to contact that counsel for assistance.
        (4) If a local health officer petitions the superior court ex parte for an order authorizing involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section:
        (a) The petition shall specify:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups to be subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises where isolation or quarantine will take place;
        (iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine will commence;
        (iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The anticipated duration of isolation or quarantine based on the suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (vi) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm;
        (vii) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (b) The petition shall be accompanied by the declaration of the local health officer attesting to the facts asserted in the petition, together with any further information that may be relevant and material to the court's consideration.
        (c) Notice to the persons or groups identified in the petition shall be accomplished in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (d) The court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to this section within seventy-two hours of filing, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
        (e) The court shall issue the order if there is a reasonable basis to find that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others.
        (f) A court order authorizing isolation or quarantine as a result of an ex parte hearing shall:
        (i) Specify a maximum duration for isolation or quarantine not to exceed ten days;
        (ii) Identify the isolated or quarantined persons or groups by name or shared or similar characteristics or circumstances;
        (iii) Specify factual findings warranting isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section;
        (iv) Include any conditions necessary to ensure that isolation or quarantine is carried out within the stated purposes and restrictions of this section;
        (v) Specify the premises where isolation or quarantine will take place; and
        (vi) Be served on all affected persons or groups in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (5) A local health officer may petition the superior court for an order authorizing the continued isolation or quarantine of a person or group detained under subsections (3) or (4) of this section for a period up to thirty days."

        This isn't all of it, but it's enough.

      2. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Interesting how the article you posted didn't mention the proposed change to the law.  The Seattle Times is guilty of fake news.  Well, it is a matter of public record.  Here is a copy of the proposed changes.  I believe they are denying it right now because people are angry. 

        Here is the proposed change to the law.

        Procedures for isolation or quarantine.
        (1) At his or her sole discretion, a local health officer may issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, or may petition the superior court ex parte for an order to take the person or group of persons into involuntary detention for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, provided that he or she:
        (a) Has first made reasonable efforts, which shall be documented, to obtain voluntary compliance with requests for medical examination, testing, treatment, counseling, vaccination, decontamination of persons or animals, isolation, quarantine, and inspection and closure of facilities, or has determined in his or her professional judgment that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
        (b) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons is, or is suspected to be, infected with, exposed to, or contaminated with a communicable disease or chemical, biological, or radiological agent that could spread to or contaminate others if remedial action is not taken; and
        (c) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons would pose a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others if not detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine.
        (2) A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.
        (3) If a local health officer orders the immediate involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine:
        (a) The emergency detention order shall be for a period not to exceed ten days.
        (b) The local health officer shall issue a written emergency detention order as soon as reasonably possible and in all cases within twelve hours of detention that shall specify the following:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine commences;
        (iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
        (vi) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (c) The local health officer shall provide copies of the written emergency detention order to the person or group of persons detained or, if the order applies to a group and it is impractical to provide individual copies, post copies in a conspicuous place in the premises where isolation or quarantine has been imposed.
        (d) Along with the written order, and by the same means of distribution, the local health officer shall provide the person or group of persons detained with the following written notice:
        NOTICE: You have the right to petition the superior court for release from isolation or quarantine in accordance with WAC 246-100-055. You have a right to legal counsel. If you are unable to afford legal counsel, then counsel will be appointed for you at government expense and you should request the appointment of counsel at this time. If you currently have legal counsel, then you have an opportunity to contact that counsel for assistance.
        (4) If a local health officer petitions the superior court ex parte for an order authorizing involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section:
        (a) The petition shall specify:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups to be subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises where isolation or quarantine will take place;
        (iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine will commence;
        (iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The anticipated duration of isolation or quarantine based on the suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (vi) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm;
        (vii) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (b) The petition shall be accompanied by the declaration of the local health officer attesting to the facts asserted in the petition, together with any further information that may be relevant and material to the court's consideration.
        (c) Notice to the persons or groups identified in the petition shall be accomplished in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (d) The court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to this section within seventy-two hours of filing, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
        (e) The court shall issue the order if there is a reasonable basis to find that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others.
        (f) A court order authorizing isolation or quarantine as a result of an ex parte hearing shall:
        (i) Specify a maximum duration for isolation or quarantine not to exceed ten days;
        (ii) Identify the isolated or quarantined persons or groups by name or shared or similar characteristics or circumstances;
        (iii) Specify factual findings warranting isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section;
        (iv) Include any conditions necessary to ensure that isolation or quarantine is carried out within the stated purposes and restrictions of this section;
        (v) Specify the premises where isolation or quarantine will take place; and
        (vi) Be served on all affected persons or groups in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (5) A local health officer may petition the superior court for an order authorizing the continued isolation or quarantine of a person or group detained under subsections (3) or (4) of this section for a period up to thirty days.
        (a) The petition shall specify:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises where isolation or quarantine is taking place;
        (iii) The communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (iv) The anticipated duration of isolation or quarantine based on the suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The medical basis on which continued isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (b) The petition shall be accompanied by the declaration of the local health officer attesting to the facts asserted in the petition, together with any further information that may be relevant and material to the court's consideration.
        (c) The petition shall be accompanied by a statement of compliance with the conditions and principles for isolation and quarantine contained in WAC 246-100-045.
        (d) Notice to the persons or groups identified in the petition shall be accomplished in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (e) The court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to this subsection within seventy-two hours of filing, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. In extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown, the local health officer may apply to continue the hearing date for up to ten days, which continuance the court may grant at its discretion giving due regard to the rights of the affected individuals, the protection of the public's health, the severity of the public health threat, and the availability of necessary witnesses and evidence.
        (f) The court shall grant the petition if it finds that there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others.
        (g) A court order authorizing continued isolation or quarantine as a result of a hearing shall:
        (i) Specify a maximum duration for isolation or quarantine not to exceed thirty days;
        (ii) Identify the isolated or quarantined persons or groups by name or shared or similar characteristics or circumstances;
        (iii) Specify factual findings warranting isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section;
        (iv) Include any conditions necessary to ensure that isolation or quarantine is carried out within the stated purposes and restrictions of this section;
        (v) Specify the premises where isolation or quarantine will take place; and
        (vi) Be served on all affected persons or groups in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (6) Prior to the expiration of a court order for continued detention issued pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, the local health officer may petition the superior court to continue isolation or quarantine provided:
        (a) The court finds there is a reasonable basis to require continued isolation or quarantine to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of others.
        (b) The order shall be for a period not to exceed thirty days.
        (7) State statutes, rules, and state and federal emergency declarations governing procedures for detention, examination, counseling, testing, treatment, vaccination, isolation, or quarantine for specified health emergencies or specified communicable diseases, including, but not limited to, tuberculosis and HIV, shall supersede this section.

      3. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Ah, but it IS true.  Interesting how the article you posted didn't mention the proposed change to the law.  The Seattle Times is guilty of fake news.  Well, it is a matter of public record.  Here is a copy of the proposed changes.  I believe they are denying it right now because people are angry. 

        Here is the proposed change to the law or a link to the Washington State Legislature if you don't believe me. 

        https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.asp … 46-100-040



        Procedures for isolation or quarantine.
        (1) At his or her sole discretion, a local health officer may issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, or may petition the superior court ex parte for an order to take the person or group of persons into involuntary detention for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, provided that he or she:
        (a) Has first made reasonable efforts, which shall be documented, to obtain voluntary compliance with requests for medical examination, testing, treatment, counseling, vaccination, decontamination of persons or animals, isolation, quarantine, and inspection and closure of facilities, or has determined in his or her professional judgment that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
        (b) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons is, or is suspected to be, infected with, exposed to, or contaminated with a communicable disease or chemical, biological, or radiological agent that could spread to or contaminate others if remedial action is not taken; and
        (c) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons would pose a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others if not detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine.
        (2) A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.
        (3) If a local health officer orders the immediate involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine:
        (a) The emergency detention order shall be for a period not to exceed ten days.
        (b) The local health officer shall issue a written emergency detention order as soon as reasonably possible and in all cases within twelve hours of detention that shall specify the following:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine commences;
        (iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
        (vi) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (c) The local health officer shall provide copies of the written emergency detention order to the person or group of persons detained or, if the order applies to a group and it is impractical to provide individual copies, post copies in a conspicuous place in the premises where isolation or quarantine has been imposed.
        (d) Along with the written order, and by the same means of distribution, the local health officer shall provide the person or group of persons detained with the following written notice:
        NOTICE: You have the right to petition the superior court for release from isolation or quarantine in accordance with WAC 246-100-055. You have a right to legal counsel. If you are unable to afford legal counsel, then counsel will be appointed for you at government expense and you should request the appointment of counsel at this time. If you currently have legal counsel, then you have an opportunity to contact that counsel for assistance.
        (4) If a local health officer petitions the superior court ex parte for an order authorizing involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section:
        (a) The petition shall specify:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups to be subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises where isolation or quarantine will take place;
        (iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine will commence;
        (iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The anticipated duration of isolation or quarantine based on the suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (vi) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm;
        (vii) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (b) The petition shall be accompanied by the declaration of the local health officer attesting to the facts asserted in the petition, together with any further information that may be relevant and material to the court's consideration.
        (c) Notice to the persons or groups identified in the petition shall be accomplished in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (d) The court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to this section within seventy-two hours of filing, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
        (e) The court shall issue the order if there is a reasonable basis to find that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others.
        (f) A court order authorizing isolation or quarantine as a result of an ex parte hearing shall:
        (i) Specify a maximum duration for isolation or quarantine not to exceed ten days;
        (ii) Identify the isolated or quarantined persons or groups by name or shared or similar characteristics or circumstances;
        (iii) Specify factual findings warranting isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section;
        (iv) Include any conditions necessary to ensure that isolation or quarantine is carried out within the stated purposes and restrictions of this section;
        (v) Specify the premises where isolation or quarantine will take place; and
        (vi) Be served on all affected persons or groups in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (5) A local health officer may petition the superior court for an order authorizing the continued isolation or quarantine of a person or group detained under subsections (3) or (4) of this section for a period up to thirty days.
        (a) The petition shall specify:
        (i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
        (ii) The premises where isolation or quarantine is taking place;
        (iii) The communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (iv) The anticipated duration of isolation or quarantine based on the suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
        (v) The medical basis on which continued isolation or quarantine is justified.
        (b) The petition shall be accompanied by the declaration of the local health officer attesting to the facts asserted in the petition, together with any further information that may be relevant and material to the court's consideration.
        (c) The petition shall be accompanied by a statement of compliance with the conditions and principles for isolation and quarantine contained in WAC 246-100-045.
        (d) Notice to the persons or groups identified in the petition shall be accomplished in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (e) The court shall hold a hearing on a petition filed pursuant to this subsection within seventy-two hours of filing, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. In extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown, the local health officer may apply to continue the hearing date for up to ten days, which continuance the court may grant at its discretion giving due regard to the rights of the affected individuals, the protection of the public's health, the severity of the public health threat, and the availability of necessary witnesses and evidence.
        (f) The court shall grant the petition if it finds that there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that isolation or quarantine is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others.
        (g) A court order authorizing continued isolation or quarantine as a result of a hearing shall:
        (i) Specify a maximum duration for isolation or quarantine not to exceed thirty days;
        (ii) Identify the isolated or quarantined persons or groups by name or shared or similar characteristics or circumstances;
        (iii) Specify factual findings warranting isolation or quarantine pursuant to this section;
        (iv) Include any conditions necessary to ensure that isolation or quarantine is carried out within the stated purposes and restrictions of this section;
        (v) Specify the premises where isolation or quarantine will take place; and
        (vi) Be served on all affected persons or groups in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.
        (6) Prior to the expiration of a court order for continued detention issued pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, the local health officer may petition the superior court to continue isolation or quarantine provided:
        (a) The court finds there is a reasonable basis to require continued isolation or quarantine to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of others.
        (b) The order shall be for a period not to exceed thirty days.
        (7) State statutes, rules, and state and federal emergency declarations governing procedures for detention, examination, counseling, testing, treatment, vaccination, isolation, or quarantine for specified health emergencies or specified communicable diseases, including, but not limited to, tuberculosis and HIV, shall supersede this section.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this
          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            You can post other people interpretations all you want.

            I went to the source.  Read what was proposed and came up with my understanding based on the law proposed.

            I don't need those sources.  I can think for myself.

            Have YOU read it?  It's right up there.  I provided the link as well as copied and pasted the law.

            Please don't tell me you are the kind of person who relies on others to do your thinking for you.

            1. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              No worries.

              According to the first AP link the chair of the Code Board said he: 
                  "believes the state has only used its quarantine and isolation procedures with regard to tuberculosis, and rarely at that. He added that the procedures don’t give health officials “unilateral” authority to take someone against their will — individuals affected would have the right to petition a superior court for release."

              So, they have not used it on COVID yet, and you will have a right to appeal if jailed.

              What a relief?!?!

  6. hard sun profile image80
    hard sunposted 10 months ago

    An attorney for the Illinois Department of Public Health said the agency does not collect data that differentiates between so-called "acute" and "incidental" cases of COVID-19.

    Currently, anyone in the hospital who tests positive for the coronavirus is included in coronavirus hospitalization counts sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    https://patch.com/illinois/evanston/idp … spitalized

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      The data that Dr. Wallensky quoted, as viewed here https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … ation.html

      You will see that hospitals in New York state are presenting their data as hospitalizations FOR covid or hospitalizations for reasons but covid positive. Big difference.
      Would you like me to provide links of the multitude of hospitals across multiple states that are reporting this way also?

      Yes, some are not parsing out their data in this way but many many are. 

      This is a data collection problem not a conspiracy.

      1. hard sun profile image80
        hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        It is a problem.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          https://youtu.be/YfxnKgCN3OY

          Think New York went a step worst in tyranny than my area.

          1. hard sun profile image80
            hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Never been happier to live in a "Red state" despite my disagreements with the Republicans. Don Lemon is a punk.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              The main reason I would move to a red or swing state. Is for weather, freedom and free speech.

              1. hard sun profile image80
                hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I just spoke to a few university students who said that it even seems like some professors are losing faith in these shots. No boosters for those who don't think they need them. Any politician pushing boosters for everyone is a jobless politician around here.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image74
                  Castlepalomaposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  As the pendulum swings.

                  1. hard sun profile image80
                    hard sunposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    And it is absolutely swinging:

                    Bill Maher pushes back against blindly following advice of Dr. Fauci https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment … np1taskbar

    2. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Hard sun, It sounds to me that you are being too finicky and not looking hard enough for the data. 

      The CDC does publish detailed data daily on infection rate by vaccination status and hospitalisations of covid patients by vaccination status:-

      •    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke … ine-status
      •    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke … accination

      Likewise, the UK also publishes comprehensive daily and weekly reports covering this information, for example:-

      https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … /hospitals

      As regards to what we are told by the Government on the TV, rather than what’s in the Government reports which are published independently of the Government, the UK’s BMA (British Medical Association) have done their own fact checking which makes for interesting reading.  For example the BMS quite rightly states that on TV the Prime Minister and Government Ministers have recently quoted between 80% and 90% of those in hospital with covid are unvaccinated.

      However, when the BMA did their own fact checking that found that the actual figure back in December was 61% were unvaccinated; but considering that less than 10% of the UK population is unvaccinated, for 61% of serious covid illness to come from just 10% of the population speaks volumes.

      The BMA summarises this by saying “Further analysis by the agency (BMA) has concluded that unvaccinated adults are as much as eight times more likely to be admitted to hospital than those who have been vaccinated and that booster doses are 88% effective at preventing hospital admission.”

      https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

      As regards your point ‘the difference between acute and incidental covid hospitalisation data’ the UK does provide separate data for the acute cases e.g. as of yesterday there were 18,494 covid patients in hospital, of which 675 were acute case; so I’m sure the CDC will also have similar data, if you actually look for it.

      https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

  7. Kathleen Cochran profile image78
    Kathleen Cochranposted 10 months ago

    Two? At least 2? That many!

  8. hard sun profile image80
    hard sunposted 10 months ago

    Why do you care how finicky I am being. No more boosters. I've presented tons of evidence that you entirely disregarded..so, why bother? You can get a pick line if you'd like. I'm COVID recovered.

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Touchy,

      And likewise, you totally disregard the tons of evidence that I’ve presented to you – “Pot calling the kettle black”.

      Yep, I’ve had the booster jab, along with 36,688,441 other Brits (63.8% of the UK population over the age of 12); and that’s why (unlike many other countries, including parts of the USA) we will no Longer have any covid restriction in England as from the 27th January.

  9. hard sun profile image80
    hard sunposted 10 months ago

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/23/dr-m … your-life/

    The doctor said we will survive the current crisis if we keep these three words in mind: “Integrity, dignity community.”

    “Fight for your children. Do not comply,” he concluded.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Right on!

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        It's a shame parent have to protect their children from vaccine that doesn't work and provides serious side effects. 

        "School threatens to ARREST unmasked students for 'trespassing'"

        https://www.wnd.com/2022/02/school-thre … g-charges/

        1. Castlepaloma profile image74
          Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          It's the ultimate shame attacking children.
          The didn't care about poor children over in a few places in the middle east before

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I don’t know about the USA, but in the UK only ‘all’ children from the age of 12 are eligible for the covid vaccine, not from the age of 5 as in some countries.  And in the UK the vaccines are not mandatory.  Albeit children from the age of 5 in the UK who have an underlying illness that would put them at risk of covid are also eligible for the vaccine on medial grounds.

            In the UK, under English law, a child under 16 have the ability to make his/her own decision to accept medical treatment that is offered to him/her, provided he/she is assessed by the healthcare professional offering the treatment as understanding the information relevant to that decision, and the maturity to weigh it up and reach a decision. This is often referred to as ‘Gillick competence’, after the legal case in 1985 that established the principle in England and Wales.

            This is juridical law that stems back to a 1985 because of children under the age of 16 seeking contraception from their doctors, without their parent’s knowledge and consent; a common practice back in the 1970s when my wife and were courting.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

            1. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              UK regulator approves use of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in 5 to 11-year olds

              https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-r … -year-olds

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Yeah, you obviously didn't bother reading everything that I wrote above; I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote above.

                The MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) approved the use of these specific covid vaccines for children aged between 5 to 11 years in the UK on the 22 December 2021. 

                But the MHRA (a Government Scientific and Medical Department) is a Regulatory Authority independent of the Government e.g. the Government can NOT choose to use a vaccine on a particular age group without the approval of the MHRA and the Approval of the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) - the JCVI being an independent Government Body that makes recommendations to the Government concerning vaccines.

                The UK also takes advice from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) when formulating polices relating to the pandemic.  SAGE provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies.

                However, at this point (although they now have the authority to do so) at this time the UK Government has chosen NOT to offer the covid vaccine for general distribution to all 5 to 11 year old children.

                It is as I clearly stated above (if you’d bothered to read what I wrote):

                To Quote:-

                “Albeit children from the age of 5 in the UK who have an underlying illness that would put them at risk of covid are also eligible for the vaccine on medial grounds.”

                Eligible children for the vaccine include those with diabetes, immunosuppression, learning disabilities, and other conditions as outlined by the UK Health Security Agency in the Green Book.  There are around half a million 5 to 11 year old children that fall into this category out of a total of over 5.78 million; so about 10% of children in the UK between the age of 5 to 11 will be eligible for the vaccine.

                1. hard sun profile image80
                  hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Wow. Okay then. Lol. What comes next?

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    My crystal balls are a little cloudy at the moment, so I don’t know – lol.

  10. hard sun profile image80
    hard sunposted 9 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15882516.jpg

    hmm

    1. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      It's why Trucker are stopping them in their tracks or it will be for ever ending.

      1. hard sun profile image80
        hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly. Stand up. Show some cojones.

    2. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      We don’t have vaccine passports in England

      1. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        No mandates too?

        1. Nathanville profile image92
          Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Yep, you are right, no mandates in England:-

          *  Social Distancing was abolished in England on the 19th July 2021
          *  Mask mandates have been abolished.
          *  And no vaccine mandates.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image74
            Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Our Trudeau dress up in black face many times. He said he won't talk to the convoy freedom protester over vaccine Mandates, yet been to a few Black lives matter protests. Just met with the Queen of Canada and England.

            His this all perfectly right?

            1. Nathanville profile image92
              Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Well Trudeau was democratically elected by the people!

        2. hard sun profile image80
          hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          As of like a month or so ago. That's because some people stand up and say just how ridiculous they are. If everyone was as cow toeing as some, we would be in bigger trouble.

          Boris getting called out on party gate helped end those mandates as well.

          Let your guard down and they'll be back.

          With some people cheering them on.

          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry but you’ve got the wrong end of the stick; ending the mandates has nothing whatsoever to do with Boris’s partygates.  All restrictions were lifted in England on the 19th July 2021 (because of a highly successful vaccination programme), long before the Partygate scandal. 

            And just a couple of the mandates (Masks and covid passports in some settings) were re-introduced just for a few weeks over Christmas and the New Year because of the spike in cases due to the Omicron variant.

            Since then infection rates have plummeted, covid related hospitalisations deaths have fallen, and are still falling.  Covid Infections have fallen another 5.2% in the last 7 days, hospitalisations have fallen a further 8.7% in the past 7 days, and covid related deaths have fallen a further 7.1% in the past 7 days.

            •    91.2% of the UK population over the age of 12 have now had 1 dose.
            •    84.5% of the UK population over the age of 12 have now had 2 doses, and
            •    65.3% of the UK population over the age of 12 have now had the booster.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image74
              Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              What makes UK health model superior to the Canadians health model. When per capita  the UK citizen are almost Three times overall greater chance of dieing from Covid than Canadians.

              Also in Europe balancing the rate of vaccination deaths and vaccination  European have 120 times greater chance of dying from Covid and their vaccines than African.

              it's an absolutely no brainer what health model is Superior. Moral of the story is. Why trust whole heartedly the leading cause of death in the world, the mainstream medical profession.
              On top of that fueled by absolutely corrupted Politics and  media and centralist.

              The more I learn about human mass psychosis the more I love my dogs and pigs.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Well you obviously haven’t checked the current death rates have you?  FYI currently UK citizens are not almost three times more likely to die from covid than Canadians per capita.  Currently if you take the current covid death rate for each country (UK & Canada) and adjust for difference in population size, the current risk of dying from covid in Canada is ONLY 1.2% less likely than in the UK – So it would seem that the vaccination programme in the UK has worked.

                FYI 73.6% of all covid deaths worldwide have been in people aged over 64, while the life expectancy in Africa is 63; so of course you’re not going to get many coivd deaths in Africa compared to the wealthier nations where people live longer.

                Yep, while up to now Canada has got off rather light compared to Europe, with the pandemic; its neighbour, the USA hasn’t.  The total death toll in the USA adjusted for population (per capita) is now 16.8% higher than the UK; and the current death rate in the USA (adjusted for population) is almost double that of the UK.

                So as you say “it's an absolutely no brainer what health model is Superior”; and as a bonus the UK is now enjoying ‘freedom’ (no mandates, no restrictions, no mandatory vaccinations), which is more than what can be said for Canada and the USA.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image74
                  Castlepalomaposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Not courting all the many other ways of dying greater than the way of dying from Covid.

                  Another health model is Africa campare to Europe. European has a 120 times greater chance from dying from vaccines than Africans.

                  Africans know this by failures from malaria and aids vaccine guinea pig experimental just like Europe is treated with Covid.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    FYI, at the height of the pandemic in January 2020, when less than 1% of the population was vaccinated, covid was the leading cause of death in the UK.

                    Also, as I previously pointed out:  73.6% of all covid deaths worldwide have been in people aged over 64, while the life expectancy in Africa is 63; so of course you’re not going to get many coivd deaths in Africa compared to the wealthier nations like Europe or the USA, where people live longer.

            2. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Partygate related or not, I am glad you are thankful that they gave you your freedoms back that they took for an overblown flu.

              Bragging about the percentage of vaccinated in your nation just shows how far apart we are on this.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Bragging about vaccination is because vaccinations saves lives, and it’s because of the successful vaccination programme in the UK that we’ve got our freedom back.

                And FYI covid is not “an overblown flu”; for starters it’s a different strain of virus, and secondly, in January 2020, at the height of the pandemic (when less than 1% of the population was vaccinated) covid was the leading cause of death in the UK.

                1. hard sun profile image80
                  hard sunposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Different strain of virus, lol. Thank you for the science lesson. Take care, double mask, and let the boosters flow.

                  I went to an ER and doctors/nurses were blatantly downplaying the risk of COVID to anyone who is not elderly or severely immune compromised. It is vastly overblown.

                  If you believe it was ever the leading cause of death anywhere, yeah.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    In 2020 (when no one was vaccinated) the leading causes of death in the UK were:-

                    •    Covid = 42.4%
                    •    Dementia and Alzheimer’s = 11.5%
                    •    Heart Diseases = 9.2%
                    •    cerebrovascular diseases = 4.9%
                    •    malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung = 4.7%

                    In December 2021 (a year on, and after over 90% of the population were vaccinated) covid accounted for just 5.4% of all deaths in the UK.

                    Yeah, now, with the Omicron variant, things are vastly different; the Omicron variant, although far more contagious, is far less deadly – and yes, now the only elderly people (people over the age of 55) and the immune compromised need to seriously worry e.g. annual jabs for the elderly and immune compromised in future years, just like the flu jab.

                    Your doctors and nurses in the ER in the USA may be downplaying the risk of Covid, but in the UK ours are still being responsible.  FYI, following my kidney illness in January 2020 (when I was rushed to a hospital in an ambulance, and spent three weeks recovering in hospital) I now need to revisit the hospital periodically for a check-up:  At first it was monthly, then once every two months, then three months, and now (as I have made a good recovery) four months to my next appointment; and when I do visit the hospital as a day patient they take every precision to limit the spread of the virus (and quite rightly too).

                    And, FYI masks are not mandatory in England anymore.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)