bickster

Yes he did but expressing it that way is (IMO) a scare tactic because it sounds horrendous. It's not really anywhere near that bad, it is a change in the potential death rate of around 0.3% and when you think of it in those terms its more obvious that there isn't actually any real data to back the claim up, Valance himself said this but the headlines were grabbed by the 30-40% more deaths. A variance of 3 people in 1000 could easily be explained by the sample sizes not being of the same age distribution or any other host of factors. If the numbers had changed from 10 to 11 would anyone bat (soz) and eyelid? but the death rate would have gone up 10% in their terms In real terms a variance in the death rate of 0.3% could be down to all sorts of factors, we don't know and quite obviously neither do the scientists (they as good as said so)

I never said 0,2% for starters but you asked where it came from so I told you, it's 0.3% deaths went from 10/1000 to 13/1000 so deaths in 100 increased by 0.3% (of potential deaths)

The difference between 10 and 13 (so really it should be 0.3%)

Unfortunately for me it's, I've seen Oasis how many f***ing times? (I genuinely don't care to know but it's a lot). On the other hand I can say never have I ever paid to see Oasis live

For once I agree, a variance of 0.3% does not seem significant

I'd have thought they were up your street tbh, very country influenced

You should give the reformed Dream Syndicate another go, I really like the last two albums

We put them on once around the time of Looking for Lewis and Clarke (October 16th 1985), which coincidentally is the only record of theirs I own (double 7" version). Not really my thing, I prefered Green on Red, Dream Syndicate and a few others from that "Paisley Underground" Scene but they seemed like a nice bunch of guys.and it's now starting to happen that people from bands in the era I musically grew up in are starting to pop off this mortal coil which makes me a little sad in itself

Sorry for the Heil article so that's a possible increase in mortality of in the range 0.2-0.3%. Is it that significantly different?

That concrete evidence is posted in this very thread, you are choosing to ignore it!

Here we go again, you have affirmed your opinion based on something someone else said that fits your argument whilst ignoring the scientific evidence presented It is not all speculation. It is as close as science can get to fact. Covid-19 derives from a Bat Coronavirus

Depends if it had drank enough Buckfast beforehand

The genome sequence of the virus has been shared publically, hundreds and thousands of times, no scientist disputes it's origin. It came from bats. The only people that shed any doubt on this are not scientists, they are conspiracy theorists.

FFS Dem, the scientific peer reviewed paper that says it wasn't made in a Lab is a few posts up. 60% of known infectious diseases come from animals, 75% of new ones originate in other animals Coronaviruses come from Bats, mice and domestic animals, SARS came from Bats. Some strains of Influenza A come from bats, hell even Ebola and Rabies come from Bats. What makes you think this particular Coronavirus doesn't come from Bats when it is so closely related to SARS which came from Bats. The only unknown about it's origin is how it found its way from bats to humans, the most likely current theory is via Pangolins but this has yet to be proven. What evidence do you have that this doesn't come from Bats to counter all the scientific evidence that proves that it does?

Piss on your tyres, well known cat repellant

Your knob will drop off eventually. I worked there for three festivals, mine fell off years ago

Again... What Dr Fauci is quoted as sayingin the Newsweek article Date of article 28th April 2010. If you go to the link for the research, that was filed on 13th Feb 2020. What he said is not disingenuous. His approval for funding for research isn't that relevant. Yes he did, you don't like that the research was done, that is a fair and valid opinion but it does not connect to what he said. He said that Scientific Research indicates no evidence that the virus was created in a lab. At that point that was already known

See above post, he wasn't being disingenuous at all, he was refering to peer reviewed scientific research

New Scientist The actual Scientific Paper linked in the article says Much more on the scientific paper

I'm extremely surprised you have actually found a shred of evidence to support this theory apart from the two events taking place in the same region See what you are doing is similar logic to the following Edinburgh is built on Basalt rock formations Basalt Rocks are radioactive It's dangerous living in Edinburgh because of the radioactivity The first two statements do not add up to the third, the third is pure supposition based on no evidence at all but because you think the two are connected your brain allows you to think "it must be true"

The linking of 2 with 3

Fairly sure I said this was illegal at the time Guardian (more on link)

I found this quite a fascinating read if you have a spare 15-20 minutes The Atlantic