Is it a "global emergency"

With the greatest respect to Badger, and not wanting to post anything provocative on his thread, I do belive we should stop polluting our planet with PFAS and forever chemicals but is there an actual global emergency?
Living through the pandemic and modelers predicting 85% of populations would get covid, when the best scientists said not more than 15% based on actual data from every other pandemic monitored. (UK 2.66% caught covid) ( ONS ).
The same modellers are predicting the end but their models do not reflect records or likelyhood.
Are we being sold another pup?

I’ll kick off with an environmental experts talk.

Just been talking about this to OH who follows this more closely - I’ve not looked at the video.
Firstly, how reliable is the 2.66%? Especially in the early days with deaths among the elderly they may well have been recorded as pneumonia, as that is what is expected.
Secondly, in a pandemic scenario we can change our behaviour and it will have an almost immediate effect - so the modellers did not take this into account. There is a time lag obviously - Cheltenham in that first March would have brought together people from all of the country who then carried Covid back into their own communities. That apart, very quickly people stopped mixing and that would have slowed the transmission of Covid.
So pandemics are not a good analogy for what is happening now with climate change and the polluting of our planet. If everyone changed their behaviour tomorrow (as, in a way they did with Covid) the trajectory we are on will not now change much for the next 30 or so years because the path we are following is one that was laid down 30 + years ago. Yes, this IS a global emergency and like some giant super-tanker it’s going to take a long, long time for this earth to change direction.


Care to show the link to that figure, as I think you have misread that figure if you think only 2.66% of the total population in the UK have ever had COVID.

1 Like

Thats the real problem, Naismith estimates as do so many others so the narrative fits the model in order to justify their knighthood, their next big cheque from some other body with a vested?
Getting to the real truth is very tricky.

I read that as 2.66% of people had COVID in one week.

1 Like

Your 2.66% was for the last week recorded not the total % of the UK population who had caught COVID throughout the pandemic.

John beat me to it.

According to the ONS

In England, an estimated 38.5 million people had coronavirus (COVID-19) between 27 April 2020 and 11 February 2022 (90% credible intervals: 36.0 million to 41.2 million), equating to 70.7% of the population (90% credible intervals: 66.0% to 75.6%).

Exactly but the same models of catastophe are being used again, Or are they? The video shows one of the leading climate advisors to the Obama administration. There are others like Dr Patrick Moore founding member of Greenpeace who have been with others studying the climate for decades.
In order to get a grip on the subject I find it necessary to look into all angles of the topic and whilst it may be provocative happy to look at others posts countering points. I was happy to go along with cleaning up humans mess and improving our environment but there do seem to be very conflicting views.

There’s that word estimated again.

Now your just being silly.

Lets leave the covid topic and get back to Climate estimates.

Classic, you quoted the figures when it suited your narrative :wink::laughing::roll_eyes:


Your figures were probably 55% out and were used as a example to support your argument.

Your clutching at straws after the entire premise of your argument was discredited. To be frank, to make such a basic error really damages your credibility.


Well we need to start somewhere. Part of posting is to be countered. I have gone back to the source of the point and asked them for clarification.

If you watch the video, it becomes into context that modelers do over exagerate the case. The figures quoted for deaths from covid modelling were way off.

Without seeing the assumptions in the models that’s not a valid statement. The initial models could have been predicated on the lack of known treatments so you need to be more specific on which models and what were the assumptions.

1 Like

I tend not to do my research on YouTube.


As has been pointed out that’s just one week not for the whole pandemic.

Let’s do some elementary probability.

2.66% is a probability of 0.0266 of catching Covid that week, or 1-0.0266 which is a probability of 0.9734 of not catching Covid that week.

The previous week was 2.36% or 0.9764.

So, the chance of not catching Covid either week was 0.9764*0.9734 which is 0.9504 - or 95%, give or take.

Soooo - for the two weeks in question 5% of the UK population had Covid.

The week before that was 2.14%, mix that in and we have 93% of the population Covid free over the three weeks.

Go back another week and it was 2.31%, mix it in and it’s 90.1% of the population Covid Free, 9.9% having caught it. Note that’s *nearly* the same as 2.66+2.36+2.14+2.31, but not quite. The difference is due to the fact that you can catch Covid more than once - not many over 4 weeks I guess but that will figure more and more as the weeks are folded in.

The next 4 weeks back (w/c 3, 10, 17 and 24 Feb 2023) were 1.42%, 1.56%, 1.88% and 2.18% - mix those in with the March figures and it’s 84.6% of people who were lucky enough to escape Covid over that 2 month period and therefore 15.4% who copped a dose.

Fold in Jan 2023 and we have 74.3% Covid free (over the period Jan-March 2023).

Keep adding in the data and by the time you get back to include Oct 2022-March 2023 you will find that 44% will have had Covid in this period, 56% not - I can’t go back further as the ONS site is blocking me at the moment (too many downloads) but if I were to continue adding the data in I can guarantee I could demonstrate that 85% (or more) of the population is likely to have had Covid.


I tend not do mine via the BBC or press.
I will get the actual article on whatever media its on, its the data that should be viewed.