toblerone3
Grrrrr
Just gone back to rewatch the original video and I think you're being overly harsh. All of the four figures of deaths related to the COVID pandemic described in the first three minutes of the video were accurate as far as can see and he did clearly explain the difference between them.
Indeed he started with excess deaths at the one minute mark and said that that this was perhaps the most accurate way to look at deaths.
Three out of the four ways of counting COVID deaths were well-known, so it was understandable that he was focussing on the one that that had recently come to light via the FOI request. That is the nature of news you focus on what is new and you have to bear in mind that he posts almost every other day.
While he had explained the different definitions clearly in the initial part of the video, from the 14 minute mark he did put in further caveats noting that "I don't want to be disingenuous here, people always die from a variety of causes.....
Just because it was near the end of the video doesn't make it not there. The discussion about life expectectancy and QALYS was also pretty near the end of the video. I had a feeling that some of the arguements there were a bit flaky and that would have been a better way of criticising the video.
Also I didn't think that the response video was insincere or anything like a "pathetic wriggling response"
Of course other people may have used the 17,000 (or so) deaths from COVID with non other underlying cause to further other agendas. It was clear that the ONS article was not about Dr John Campbell alone because if you believed that the ONS article was was a misrepresentation. Campbell simply did not state "the true number of deaths caused by COVID-19 in England and Wales is ‘only’ around 17,000 people" everything was defined and caveated from the very beginning of the video. Another piece of context that you might have missed out on is that he is not an anti-Vaxxer and often states on his videos that he is triple-vaxxed.
Indeed he started with excess deaths at the one minute mark and said that that this was perhaps the most accurate way to look at deaths.
Three out of the four ways of counting COVID deaths were well-known, so it was understandable that he was focussing on the one that that had recently come to light via the FOI request. That is the nature of news you focus on what is new and you have to bear in mind that he posts almost every other day.
While he had explained the different definitions clearly in the initial part of the video, from the 14 minute mark he did put in further caveats noting that "I don't want to be disingenuous here, people always die from a variety of causes.....
Just because it was near the end of the video doesn't make it not there. The discussion about life expectectancy and QALYS was also pretty near the end of the video. I had a feeling that some of the arguements there were a bit flaky and that would have been a better way of criticising the video.
Also I didn't think that the response video was insincere or anything like a "pathetic wriggling response"
Of course other people may have used the 17,000 (or so) deaths from COVID with non other underlying cause to further other agendas. It was clear that the ONS article was not about Dr John Campbell alone because if you believed that the ONS article was was a misrepresentation. Campbell simply did not state "the true number of deaths caused by COVID-19 in England and Wales is ‘only’ around 17,000 people" everything was defined and caveated from the very beginning of the video. Another piece of context that you might have missed out on is that he is not an anti-Vaxxer and often states on his videos that he is triple-vaxxed.
Last edited: