|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Nov 4, 2023 12:46:08 GMT
The way this country imploded in on itself and completely destroyed the standard of living for the average Joe and turned reasonable folk into snarling lunatics means as soon as my parents are no longer around I’m off out of this country. It’s done for, it’s a bit like Elvis really the UK, was once greatly admired but is now a slovenly alcoholic lying in its own squalor on the bathroom floor. I will never forget being called a murderer for daring to live my life as normal. Yep, the indoctrination of ordinary Brits goes to show just how quickly and easy a society can totally lose it's moral compass and back a two tier society - If government and the propaganda machine put enough fear out there and do it in the name of a "good cause", in this case it was the health service, a nation will quickly lose it's mind and support authoritarianism to the point where allegedly "educated" people actively encouraged the banning of education, forcing young children to where a mask and totally obliterating livelihoods in the name of a virus with a 99%+ survival rate. Some of the utterances and opinions of supposedly “educated” people was truly scary. The lack of common sense and questioning was eye opening. Fuckin demented sheep
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Nov 4, 2023 12:52:08 GMT
Some people walking the streets here wearing masks ... Mask wearing should be banned. See how they like that version of authoritarianism. Anoraks. If doing something isn’t harming someone else then it shouldn’t be banned. If people choose to wear 5 masks, stupid and ridiculous as I think it is let them crack on
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 4, 2023 13:24:00 GMT
The government were actually on the right track initially in my opinion i.e. to let the virus run through the healthy population and attempt to shield the vulnerable. Instead of the ridiculously expensive track/trace, they should have used the money to basically pay the susceptible to stay put. Unfair perhaps but then its unfair to have asked children to abandon their development for 2 years for the sake of others. Obviously its difficult politically/morally to do it as some people are effectively getting written off especially when you have a chorus of dissenting 'experts' mouthing off at every opportunity. The government did want the virus to run through the population but they didn't do anything to shield the vulnerable - in fact their policy of freeing up beds by discharging old people back into care homes did the exact opposite. Johnson's initial plan was to let the virus rip but at least he recognised the consequences - hundreds of thousands of old and vulnerable people would die but he believed this was justifiable in order to keep the economy going. Basically he was saying grandad should take one for the kids and accept their fate and as the COVID enquiry has revealed he said as much in the initial meetings. At least Johnson was honest enough to recognise what would happen and initially was prepared to accept responsibility for his decision to let the virus rip. It was only when his advisors started to plan for the consequences of Johnson's let it rip policy and he was faced with the imminent collapse of the NHS and things like the use of ice rinks to stock pile the dead bodies did he change direction. I suspect he didn't change direction out of a change of heart - he was quite prepared to adopt a policy that would kill off thousands of people - but rather realised it wouldn't be a good look. It was all about how he would look in the history books. I actually have some time for people who support the let it rip policy who accept that this will inevitably result in a much higher death toll than would be the case if mitigating action were taken. At least it is honest and it shows a willingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The people I can't stand are those who advocate a let it rip policy who either deny or disown the consequences of their decisions. I'm not convinced it would have led to a much higher death toll if the huge resources put into track/trace were instead used to properly shield those who were actually at risk from the virus. I'm not saying you could have trusted BoJo to do this, but that nationwide lockdowns were a stupid idea with far reaching consequences which are still playing out right now.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 4, 2023 14:05:06 GMT
Mask wearing should be banned. See how they like that version of authoritarianism. Anoraks. If doing something isn’t harming someone else then it shouldn’t be banned. If people choose to wear 5 masks, stupid and ridiculous as I think it is let them crack on They certainly do cause harm imo, particularly for children.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 4, 2023 17:40:04 GMT
410 BILLION for convid so far and now this fake covid inquiry. The fleecing of public and wealth transfer goes on and on and on.
All to be told that worthless, catastrophic, and tyrannical lockups should be more brutal for the planned next fake scamdemic which the WHO will control.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Nov 6, 2023 16:34:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 6, 2023 18:28:05 GMT
The government did want the virus to run through the population but they didn't do anything to shield the vulnerable - in fact their policy of freeing up beds by discharging old people back into care homes did the exact opposite. Johnson's initial plan was to let the virus rip but at least he recognised the consequences - hundreds of thousands of old and vulnerable people would die but he believed this was justifiable in order to keep the economy going. Basically he was saying grandad should take one for the kids and accept their fate and as the COVID enquiry has revealed he said as much in the initial meetings. At least Johnson was honest enough to recognise what would happen and initially was prepared to accept responsibility for his decision to let the virus rip. It was only when his advisors started to plan for the consequences of Johnson's let it rip policy and he was faced with the imminent collapse of the NHS and things like the use of ice rinks to stock pile the dead bodies did he change direction. I suspect he didn't change direction out of a change of heart - he was quite prepared to adopt a policy that would kill off thousands of people - but rather realised it wouldn't be a good look. It was all about how he would look in the history books. I actually have some time for people who support the let it rip policy who accept that this will inevitably result in a much higher death toll than would be the case if mitigating action were taken. At least it is honest and it shows a willingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The people I can't stand are those who advocate a let it rip policy who either deny or disown the consequences of their decisions. I'm not convinced it would have led to a much higher death toll if the huge resources put into track/trace were instead used to properly shield those who were actually at risk from the virus. I'm not saying you could have trusted BoJo to do this, but that nationwide lockdowns were a stupid idea with far reaching consequences which are still playing out right now. There are three quite separate issues here - firstly what are the best public health policies to adopt to deal with a particular outbreak (and this will vary according to the nature of the disease), secondly what are the economic and other consequences of associated with a particular course of action (ie what is the cost/benefits assessment associated with a given course of action) and thirdly is the government and agencies responsible for taking action clued up enough and in a fit state to implement the chosen course of action. The enquiry to date has focused on the third issue and shown that government wasn't prepared. In fact they have clearly demonstrated it was a complete shit show and it it would have been a shitshow regardless of what they actually did. That needs addressing whatever the other conclusions. The first issue is actually one for the experts - politicians shouldn't be responsible for deciding on technical matters - that's up to the experts in the field. The second issue is a matter for a broader range of experts ( including economists and people looking at the non epidemiological consequences of any course off action) as well as politicians who have to weigh up the pros and cons, make a decision and take action. These two issues also need addressing but to date the COVID enquiry doesn't seem to have addressed them.
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Nov 6, 2023 19:38:45 GMT
During the pandemic it felt like the government were completely incompetent and had no real idea what they were doing. The Covid Inquiry just confirms those suspicions. The sad thing is that a large portion of the British public voted Johnson and his cronies into power because of Brexit. Then the pandemic hit and we ended up with the worst possible people running the country at the worst possible time. That as may be but the other lot wanted go even more balls deep on lockdowns etc so highly likely they would not of been any better or even worse.
|
|
jack1
Youth Player
Posts: 297
|
Post by jack1 on Nov 6, 2023 20:05:03 GMT
I'm not convinced it would have led to a much higher death toll if the huge resources put into track/trace were instead used to properly shield those who were actually at risk from the virus. I'm not saying you could have trusted BoJo to do this, but that nationwide lockdowns were a stupid idea with far reaching consequences which are still playing out right now. There are three quite separate issues here - firstly what are the best public health policies to adopt to deal with a particular outbreak (and this will vary according to the nature of the disease), secondly what are the economic and other consequences of associated with a particular course of action (ie what is the cost/benefits assessment associated with a given course of action) and thirdly is the government and agencies responsible for taking action clued up enough and in a fit state to implement the chosen course of action. The enquiry to date has focused on the third issue and shown that government wasn't prepared. In fact they have clearly demonstrated it was a complete shit show and it it would have been a shitshow regardless of what they actually did. That needs addressing whatever the other conclusions. The first issue is actually one for the experts - politicians shouldn't be responsible for deciding on technical matters - that's up to the experts in the field. The second issue is a matter for a broader range of experts ( including economists and people looking at the non epidemiological consequences of any course off action) as well as politicians who have to weigh up the pros and cons, make a decision and take action. These two issues also need addressing but to date the COVID enquiry doesn't seem to have addressed them. Which experts? The one's funded by big pharma or the one's shut down and canceled?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 6, 2023 20:18:57 GMT
There are three quite separate issues here - firstly what are the best public health policies to adopt to deal with a particular outbreak (and this will vary according to the nature of the disease), secondly what are the economic and other consequences of associated with a particular course of action (ie what is the cost/benefits assessment associated with a given course of action) and thirdly is the government and agencies responsible for taking action clued up enough and in a fit state to implement the chosen course of action. The enquiry to date has focused on the third issue and shown that government wasn't prepared. In fact they have clearly demonstrated it was a complete shit show and it it would have been a shitshow regardless of what they actually did. That needs addressing whatever the other conclusions. The first issue is actually one for the experts - politicians shouldn't be responsible for deciding on technical matters - that's up to the experts in the field. The second issue is a matter for a broader range of experts ( including economists and people looking at the non epidemiological consequences of any course off action) as well as politicians who have to weigh up the pros and cons, make a decision and take action. These two issues also need addressing but to date the COVID enquiry doesn't seem to have addressed them. Which experts? The one's funded by big pharma or the one's shut down and canceled? It’s totally pointless, nobody will be held to account and when the dust has settled they’ll try it again
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Nov 6, 2023 20:22:10 GMT
Which experts? The one's funded by big pharma or the one's shut down and canceled? It’s totally pointless, nobody will be held to account and when the dust has settled they’ll try it again Certainly will.. climate change i reckon...
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 6, 2023 21:22:06 GMT
We call them hate marches now mate.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 6, 2023 21:23:46 GMT
More hate marches invoking violence on rememberance day
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 7, 2023 10:14:00 GMT
We call them hate marches now mate. Absolute guff
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Nov 7, 2023 10:44:20 GMT
We call them hate marches now mate. Absolute guff I just don't agree with people trying to incite violence and break the law on rememberance day of all days.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Nov 14, 2023 11:16:06 GMT
Yes, it was a conspiracy.
Yes, it was perfectly reasonable to be what they called 'anti-vax'.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Nov 23, 2023 16:18:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 23, 2023 16:28:32 GMT
And the sheep on here and around Britain will follow
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 16:41:21 GMT
People in China regularly wear masks anyways. My wife comes from a “village” about 90 minutes train from Beijing. That “village” has over 2.5 million people in it.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 23, 2023 16:51:06 GMT
People in China regularly wear masks anyways. My wife comes from a “village” about 90 minutes train from Beijing. That “village” has over 2.5 million people in it. Have we not concluded now that masks don't work. I might be wrong but that's what I thought had been more or less agreed universally.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 16:57:43 GMT
People in China regularly wear masks anyways. My wife comes from a “village” about 90 minutes train from Beijing. That “village” has over 2.5 million people in it. Have we not concluded now that masks don't work. I might be wrong but that's what I thought had been more or less agreed universally. There was a flawed study by Cochran (I believe) a while ago that claimed they didn’t work. The scientific community, largely, has come to a consensus that they do work. If masks don’t work, ask any surgeon who may ever operate on you to not use one, even if he has the flu that day. There have been literally countless studies on this topic way before Covid. Masks are less likely to work if you scrunch it up, put it in your pocket, pick your nose after holding onto a public escalator etc though. I.e., they work if you use them properly. That’s about all I’m prepared to say on it though, sorry. It’s been done to death. People either think that they do by now, or they don’t.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 23, 2023 16:59:57 GMT
Have we not concluded now that masks don't work. I might be wrong but that's what I thought had been more or less agreed universally. There was a flawed study by Cochran (I believe) a while ago that claimed they didn’t work. The scientific community, largely, has come to a consensus that they do work. If masks don’t work, ask any surgeon who may ever operate on you to not use one, even if he has the flu that day. There have been literally countless studies on this topic way before Covid. Masks are less likely to work if you scrunch it up, put it in your pocket, pick your nose after holding onto a public escalator etc though. That’s about all I’m prepared to say on it though, sorry. It’s been done to death. People either think that they do by now, or they don’t. Masks will not stop an airborne aerosol virus ranging from 0.07 μm to 0.09 μm in size
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 23, 2023 17:03:04 GMT
Have we not concluded now that masks don't work. I might be wrong but that's what I thought had been more or less agreed universally. There was a flawed study by Cochran (I believe) a while ago that claimed they didn’t work. The scientific community, largely, has come to a consensus that they do work. If masks don’t work, ask any surgeon who may ever operate on you to not use one, even if he has the flu that day. There have been literally countless studies on this topic way before Covid. Masks are less likely to work if you scrunch it up, put it in your pocket, pick your nose after holding onto a public escalator etc though. I.e., they work if you use them properly. That’s about all I’m prepared to say on it though, sorry. It’s been done to death. People either think that they do by now, or they don’t. I'll have to look into it a bit more then. I thought the N95 or whatever they were called worked a bit but the shyte ones we were all wandering around in were pointless. That's what trump and de santis said anyways 😆 🤣
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 17:15:21 GMT
There was a flawed study by Cochran (I believe) a while ago that claimed they didn’t work. The scientific community, largely, has come to a consensus that they do work. If masks don’t work, ask any surgeon who may ever operate on you to not use one, even if he has the flu that day. There have been literally countless studies on this topic way before Covid. Masks are less likely to work if you scrunch it up, put it in your pocket, pick your nose after holding onto a public escalator etc though. That’s about all I’m prepared to say on it though, sorry. It’s been done to death. People either think that they do by now, or they don’t. Masks will not stop an airborne aerosol virus ranging from 0.07 μm to 0.09 μm in size Ugh, I don’t know why I get brought into these things. It’s so compelling to argue. At least it’s got me in the mood to go to the gym. Thank you. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536The concept of risk is not the same is nullify. This article deliberately mentions aerosol size, as you have, and has found a number of papers that show that mask use reduces Covid transmission risk. Wearing a mask isn’t going to stop the spread of Covid. Wearing a mask does reduce the spread of Covid. There are studies out there that have said it doesn’t. There are more that says it does. This is a common thing in science. There are so many variables to control for. You generally go with the consensus opinion. It’s fine if you don’t want to but that’s how science works.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 23, 2023 17:24:34 GMT
Masks will not stop an airborne aerosol virus ranging from 0.07 μm to 0.09 μm in size Ugh, I don’t know why I get brought into these things. It’s so compelling to argue. At least it’s got me in the mood to go to the gym. Thank you. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536The concept of risk is not the same is nullify. This article deliberately mentions aerosol size, as you have, and has found a number of papers that show that mask use reduces Covid transmission risk. Wearing a mask isn’t going to stop the spread of Covid. Wearing a mask does reduce the spread of Covid. There are studies out there that have said it doesn’t. There are more that says it does. This is a common thing in science. There are so many variables to control for. You generally go with the consensus opinion. It’s fine if you don’t want to but that’s how science works. I've seen industrial mask experts showing why they do bugger all.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 17:33:44 GMT
Ugh, I don’t know why I get brought into these things. It’s so compelling to argue. At least it’s got me in the mood to go to the gym. Thank you. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536The concept of risk is not the same is nullify. This article deliberately mentions aerosol size, as you have, and has found a number of papers that show that mask use reduces Covid transmission risk. Wearing a mask isn’t going to stop the spread of Covid. Wearing a mask does reduce the spread of Covid. There are studies out there that have said it doesn’t. There are more that says it does. This is a common thing in science. There are so many variables to control for. You generally go with the consensus opinion. It’s fine if you don’t want to but that’s how science works. I've seen industrial mask experts showing why they do bugger all. Fair enough Knype. As I said initially, no one is going to convince anyone on this. People either believe the scientific consensus, or the look for individuals who don’t and believe them. You do you, and all the power to you for it.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 23, 2023 17:44:10 GMT
I've seen industrial mask experts showing why they do bugger all. Fair enough Knype. As I said initially, no one is going to convince anyone on this. People either believe the scientific consensus, or the look for individuals who don’t and believe them. You do you, and all the power to you for it. But lots of scientists also disagree and say that masks don't work and produce evidence and stats to back it up, or are they the wrong scientists ?
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 17:55:49 GMT
Fair enough Knype. As I said initially, no one is going to convince anyone on this. People either believe the scientific consensus, or the look for individuals who don’t and believe them. You do you, and all the power to you for it. But lots of scientists also disagree and say that masks don't work and produce evidence and stats to back it up, or are they the wrong scientists ? As a scientists, I can happily state that we are wrong all the time. That’s why gathering consensus evidence is important. Even the Cochrane review that came out as its harshest critic simply said that the evidence he studied was inconclusive and that the social media interpretation of his study wasn’t his finding. Wear a mask, don’t wear a mask. I couldn’t care less. I would ask though, if you are so adamant that they don’t work, would you happily go under open heart or brain surgery with a surgeon who decided he couldn’t be bothered to wear one that day?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 23, 2023 17:57:01 GMT
But lots of scientists also disagree and say that masks don't work and produce evidence and stats to back it up, or are they the wrong scientists ? As a scientists, I can happily state that we are wrong all the time. That’s why gathering consensus evidence is important. Even the Cochrane review that came out as its harshest critic simply said that the evidence he studied was inconclusive and that the social media interpretation of his study wasn’t his finding. Wear a mask, don’t wear a mask. I couldn’t care less. I would ask though, if you are so adamant that they don’t work, would you happily go under open heart or brain surgery with a surgeon who decided he couldn’t be bothered to wear one that day? Is that Turkey nearly ready or what?😉
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 23, 2023 17:59:29 GMT
As a scientists, I can happily state that we are wrong all the time. That’s why gathering consensus evidence is important. Even the Cochrane review that came out as its harshest critic simply said that the evidence he studied was inconclusive and that the social media interpretation of his study wasn’t his finding. Wear a mask, don’t wear a mask. I couldn’t care less. I would ask though, if you are so adamant that they don’t work, would you happily go under open heart or brain surgery with a surgeon who decided he couldn’t be bothered to wear one that day? Is that Turkey nearly ready or what?😉 Haha. You can tell it’s my day off 😂 There’s only two of us, I’m making Peking duck.
|
|