|
Post by GoBoks on May 28, 2021 15:49:30 GMT
In Milan for work for a few days. They’ve to wear masks outside unless jogging or eating. Complete and utter nonsense C'mon Man! Follow the science, don't you know that only politicians and scientists are immune and can do whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 28, 2021 15:48:10 GMT
If you don't want to take the vaccine that's your call. You really don't need to dig around for the most insane reason not to take the vaccine to justify your decision. There isn't a massive conspiracy by the world's medical profession to kill you. If you remain unvaccinated and get unlucky covid will do that without the need for the impossible task of co-ordinating the world's medical and public health resources to do it. The fact is you have made a decision that increases the chances of you becoming ill and dying - from a medical perspective it is not a good decision. But as you have said it's a life style choice. But it is a life style choice with zero credible evidence that it is a good one and may unfortunately shorten your life. All along, I have been saying look at both sides of the story, Government is saying get vaccinated, just as they have said it's "perfectly safe" (untrue), Wear 2 masks (untrue), schoolkids should wear masks while competing in outdoor sports (untrue), nonsensical rules for some but not others and the list goes on. On the other side, there are grand conspiracy theories that say human extermination is happening at the hand of Scientists (untrue), Government (untrue), Doctors (untrue), and the list goes on. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle, which is why it is important to look at all available information and come to an informed decision. I have given you a very specific reason why I chose not to "vaccinate", which you have chosen to ignore. It is not because Tucker Carlson says X or Dr. Fauci says Y, it is because my immediate family has been affected by a life changing adverse event after a vaccination. With a track record of 5 months, there is no way on earth that anyone can say with any certainty at all that there are no long term consequences of taking this vaccine, and if they do, they are lying. On the other hand, we do know that the consequence of not getting the vaccine is a 16 in 100,000 (and getting smaller every day) chance of dying from Covid and that there are other actions you can take to reduce the risk. To you it's a no-brainer to take the vaccine. To me it's a no-brainer not to take it. Time will tell if one, none or both of us were right. Let's check in in 5 years time and see how each of us are doing. If I die from Covid before then, I'll make it a stipulation of my will that my heirs log on and let you know! Please do the same.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 27, 2021 20:42:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 27, 2021 13:20:06 GMT
40 years is a loooong time. Only really indicative of Stoke’s overall standard during that time though innit. A Stoke XI of the last forty years would be made up almost exclusively of players from ‘08 - ‘18 Which is what one would expect as that was our only time of (relative) success in the top flight during the past 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 26, 2021 21:20:48 GMT
"no case to answer" is lawyer speak. It does not mean that his client has been proved innocent. It means that a judge has decreed that, for whatever reason, the evidence which may have suggested guilt is ruled to be inadmissible. Many (probably most) lawyers, when their client has had a case thrown out on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence like to suggest this is as good as being "proved" innocent - it isn't - it is simply that he hasn't been found to be guilty. The lawyer is giving his client's point of view which, I suppose, is what he sees as his job. Where the lawyer overstepped the mark was when he suggested that the Liverpool fans outside the stadium caused the disaster. The second inquest stated this was rubbish and that the disaster was caused by failings of the Police and the stadium management and that the fans in the pens who died were unlawfully killed.Hopefully the Law Society for England will reprimand Goldberg, who had no right to condemn the behaviour of those Liverpool fans who had been found by the second inquest to be not at fault. A shameful event from start to finish. However, and I know less than nothing about English law, isn't everyone presumed innocent until proven guilty? If so, and the court cannot find him guilty, doesn't the presumption of innocence survive? If so, for a lawyer to say "my client has been found to be innocent" (because they were not found guilty) is surely not false and therefore does not meet the standard required for a reprimand?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 26, 2021 21:09:43 GMT
Never understood the dislike of Erik myself. In my near 40 yrs of following us, cant think of too many better specialist leftbacks weve had No but that's partly due to the poverty of our left backs in that time Decent right backs aplenty but good Stoke left backs are as rare as hens teeth Eric was OK which makes him one of the best ones! 40 years is a loooong time.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 26, 2021 20:53:48 GMT
You too, vehemently support what you believe regardless of conflicting information. The real truth is seldom found at the extremes but usually somewhere in the middle. FACT: According to the USA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) operated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC -a reputable disease control authority in USA), over 4,000 people have died after receiving the COVID vaccine in the past 4 months. This compares to a total of about 4,000 people dying after receiving a flu vaccination during the past 20 years or an average of 67 in a 4 month period. About 50% of the US population has been vaccinated in both data sets. This means the Covid Vaccine related deaths are roughly 60 times higher than Flu vaccine related deaths. Question: Why the big difference? FACT: Neither the US Federal Drug Administration nor the European Medicines Agency have approved any of the Covid vaccines for anything other than "Emergency use". Question: Why not? Instead of flying off the handle because someone has a different point of view, I suggest everyone As the article points out the VAERS itself clearly states there are limitations to their data (including self reporting which from an accuracy perspective is intrinsically flaky) and there is absolutely no evidence of a causal link between those 4000 deaths and the vaccines. If you vaccinate millions of people some of them are going to die within a few days/weeks of having the vaccine because that number of people in a sample that size would die anyway. It is not a FACT that 4000 people have died as a result of taking the vaccine. It is a fact that some politically motivated anti-vaxxers have misrepresented the figures from VAERS to claim that the vaccines are dangerous. When it comes to approval the FDA is notoriously bureaucratic and the most time consuming part of developing and releasing a medicine is the jumping through the hoops. The reason the covid vaccines have got out there so quickly is because every medicines approval agency on the planet has streamlined the paperwork - the FDA have done it by side stepping some of the official paperwork and granted the vaccines emergency approval with a view to filling in the paperwork later, What hasn't been short circuited is the clinical trials which have been as rigorous as for any other vaccine. If you want the FDA's take see here: "In public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the development process may be atypical. For example, as demonstrated by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government has coalesced government agencies, international counterparts, academia, nonprofit organizations and pharmaceutical companies to develop a coordinated strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of the most promising vaccines. In addition, the federal government has made investments in the necessary manufacturing capacity at its own risk, giving companies confidence that they can invest aggressively in development and allowing faster distribution of an eventual vaccine. However, efforts to speed vaccine development to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have not sacrificed scientific standards, integrity of the vaccine review process, or safety.Recognizing the urgent need for safe and effective vaccines, FDA is utilizing its various authorities and expertise to facilitate the expeditious development and availability of vaccines that have met the agency’s rigorous and science-based standards for quality, safety, and effectiveness." I completely disagree that the way to make decisions on matters such as the safety and efficacy of vaccines is to " look at as much information available that they can find from both Liberal and Conservative sources and then make the decision that best fits their individual values, lifestyle and situation." Broadly speaking there are five types of information sources for this type of information: 1 Primary scientific publications. These are by far the most accurate but are very difficult to access and read if you aren't an exert in the field 2 Scientific publications that attempt to explain the primary sources to people who aren't experts in the field such as Nature and the New Scientist 3 Mainstream media with an editorial policy that means they don't distort scientific findings to a political agenda. These can be be either Liberal or Conservative - when it comes to reporting on scientific matters I'd trust The Guardian and The Times to be pretty accurate regardless of their political leanings, 4 Popularist media outlets that don't really understand or care about the scientific accuracy of what they report as long as it appeals to they target audience. A lot of talk radio falls into this category. 5 Complete charlatans who abuse science for political ends. Tucker Carlson and Senator Hall fall into this category. You are making decisions on the basis of advice from information source type 4 and 5. By your own admission you are choosing to believe information sources that "best fits your individual lifestyle and values" rather than those that have any credibility. You are choosing to believe what you want to believe rather than take on board what the people who actually know what they are talking about are saying is actually the nearest thing we have to being true about the matter. As I said before you are choosing to take medical advice from an anti-vaxxer politician and a talk show host. Good luck with that. Big Surprize - we disagree. Firstly, I am the best person to judge if a vaccine is right for me. There are many factors that go into that decision and not "just" what "scientists" say, although in this particular case there are enough conflicting voices and a very short history of "safe" usage. What about ethical issues? Were the vaccines developed using aborted fetal tissue? Do I have allergies? Does my lifestyle limit my exposure to outside interactions and the "reward" does not justify the risk? You go ahead and jump when others tell you to jump, I'll reserve the right to think for myself. Please don't misrepresent what I am saying. No where did I say the vaccine has caused a single death. What I did say was that VAERS reports that over 4,000 people have died after receiving the Covid Vaccine over a 4 month period while roughly the same number of people have died after receiving the Flu vaccination over a period of 20 years. Why the difference? Are you saying it's because a bunch of flaky anti-vaxers offed themselves in order to show the vaccine is unsafe? Or are you saying that the CDC's numbers are wrong - for 20 years they've been right, but now we shouldn't put too much stock in them? With all the official "it's safe" messages, why don't they go ahead and approve the drugs? Could it be they're not really sure? Has it ever happened in the past that drugs have been approved and then been found to cause devastating complications? Regarding your 5 sources of data: 1.Scientific journals - I agree, but remember that until something is proven over time, it is purely conjecture. I can probably dig out the glowing articles related to Thalidomide for example, but there are countless examples over many many decades. Do you realize that the physician who put forward the proposition that by washing your hands between patients will reduce infections was so persecuted that he was drummed out of the profession and eventually committed suicide? 2. The publications will always support their editorial board point of view. For example, abortion - There are eminent "scientists" on both sides of the equation. In addition, more and more "fact based articles" are swayed to come to one or other conclusion by vast amounts of money. Do you know the hidden agenda's, political/religious leanings and sources of funding of the magazines you read? 3.Oh Please! "Main Stream Media" like CNN I presume? We are living in the dis-information age. For almost every "Main Stream Media" story, there is an equal but opposite version of the same story on a different "main Stream Media". I would not trust something from the "main stream media" if you paid me. I don't know the Brit papers, but here, the New York Times has proven over and over to skew stories to their own particular designs. As far as I am concerned, unbiased Journalism is dead. 4 & 5. (EDIT: In my opinion, Dr. Fauci and many other leading "scientists" belong in this bucket too.) You assume you know how I make my decisions - you don't. The only news I watch is 15 minutes while I eat breakfast, I don't listen to any radio or (apart from the Oatcake) have any online presence. I do however have an autistic Grandson who was an extremely bright, talkative, delightful 2 year old kid. He received his childhood vaccinations and within a week no longer spoke, couldn't relate to people and struggles to keep focused on anything. You may say that this is a flaky VAERS report, that I am jumping to conclusions, and that it may have been hereditary or caused by something else. That was 14 years ago and every single one of my other 8 Grandchildren have not had vaccinations and did not experience the transformation that he did. So, forgive my caution when someone tries to shame me into taking a vaccine based on new "technology", that has a whole 5 month history of usage - All so I can be protected against a devastating disease that kills 16 out of 10,000 people. I suggest you realize that you don't know everything and don't rush to judgement on people's actions/motives - more often than not, you'll end up making better decisions. Like I said, go ahead and jump when someone tells you to jump if you want to, but don't expect others to suspend thought and follow suit. I prefer to think for myself and take all factors into consideration before making a decision.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 20:24:21 GMT
Guildford. 6 cases per 100,000. Good Lord. Monty Python couldn't have dreamt this shit up. These people are mentally ill. We built nut houses for a reason Problem is we can't put anyone in them or the NHS may become overwhelmed!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 17:30:11 GMT
You can hawk him around. Which is what we should have been doing. Same for Allen. There would have been takers. It was a no brainer. Two of the biggest issues on the pitch. Two players who still had a reputation that would have seen 20/30m come into the club. And two of the biggest wages off the bill. Not convinced by that at all Without benefit of a time machine we will never know I tried this on FM and it worked a charm! Scholes Out!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 17:27:10 GMT
The "we love lockdown" mob are back in town with a bang. Bolton is the first to crumble 🤣 To be fair, I would also not want to go outside my house if I lived in Bolton.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 17:25:03 GMT
Are you talking about Dr. Fauci and his ilk? Your points 1, 2 & 3 apply just as well! Anyone doing 1,2 and 3 isn't doing science. They are making money and building a reputation by falsely claiming scientific credibility for a pre-conceived theory, The history of science is littered with examples of scientists who have tried to do this and they all get found out in the end due to the rigours imposed by the scientific community as a whole. Basically the charlatans get found out - or do you actually think that 1,2 and 3 is how science actually works? I did not say that 1,2,3 is the proper scientific method, but that it seems to be the same method that Dr. Fauci and his pals seem to be following also. If you call out one set of charlatans, you need to be consistent and call out the other set of charlatans also.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 17:18:38 GMT
So where does that come from? Are you taking the word of some radical left wing journo? Have you seen the protests and reaction to some of the proposed school curriculums? Have you seen the bill that plans to curb voting rights? Do you present ID when boarding a plane or sometimes even doing a $10 credit card transaction? Do you think people should be allowed to vote without presenting ID? Anyone, (besides Joe Biden), wins an election because people voted for them, not because they called their opponents names (which btw seems to be what this article is doing itself). This Bob Hall sounds like a solid salt-of-the-earth fellow! I'd vote for him! I'm sure you'd vote for him - and in fact he's a politician and that's exactly what he wants you to do. The thing is he's telling people what they should think and do about the covid vaccines and he simply isn't qualified to do so. You're confusing politics with sound medical advice - good luck with that one. I'm not taking his word, but I am considering the source information - the CDC run VAERS database. Name one politician that does not want you to vote for them or tells you what you should be thinking. Joe Biden said he would not take the Trump developed Covid vaccine because there must have been shortcuts. One month later, he was elected and immediately started pushing everyone to take the vaccine (which was still the same vaccine that he labelled Trump developed). Shame on anyone who blindly follows politicians.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 17:13:06 GMT
Always ad hominem How about the actual information? Or, failing that, try your approach on SAGE. The following does a very good job on the information: ie the implication that the covid vaccine has caused more than 3000 deaths in the US is bullshit. SAGE are a government advisory board packed with experts in their field. Senator Hall is a known anti-vaxxer with no qualifications in medicine or virology or anything of relevance to covid. You just post videos of random people spouting off and expect us just to take what they say at face value. Whenever I post information to provide some background on these random people you claim it is not relevant. It is relevant - and in fact it is essential for gauging the credibility of the information you put up for consideration. If you don't get that you are incapable of making a rational judgement. All you are doing is choosing to believe stuff that conforms with what you already believe and you don't want people to think about what is being said and just expect people to join you in your unquestioning belief. You too, vehemently support what you believe regardless of conflicting information. The real truth is seldom found at the extremes but usually somewhere in the middle. FACT: According to the USA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) operated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC -a reputable disease control authority in USA), over 4,000 people have died after receiving the COVID vaccine in the past 4 months. This compares to a total of about 4,000 people dying after receiving a flu vaccination during the past 20 years or an average of 67 in a 4 month period. About 50% of the US population has been vaccinated in both data sets. This means the Covid Vaccine related deaths are roughly 60 times higher than Flu vaccine related deaths. Question: Why the big difference? FACT: Neither the US Federal Drug Administration nor the European Medicines Agency have approved any of the Covid vaccines for anything other than "Emergency use". Question: Why not? Instead of flying off the handle because someone has a different point of view, I suggest everyone look at as much information available that they can find from both Liberal and Conservative sources and then make the decision that best fits their individual values, lifestyle and situation.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 16:26:19 GMT
Fascinating listening to Professor Jay Bhattacharya on talkradio, cancelled by the mainstream media but not silenced. Quote - "lockdown was the thing we chose because we couldn't think of something better rather than using reason". He goes on to explain that with time lockdown will be viewed as a huge huge failure, highlighting the way that Florida followed the process put forward by many world leading scientists, including the GBD which emphasised the need to shield the vulnerable while the majority continue life unaffected. Consequently Florida has ended up with less deaths than states in permanent lockdown such as California while not experiencing the huge suffering caused by shutting down society. Been saying it all along as have so many on here...blanket lockdowns will go down in history as a catastrophic failing on society. This article provides an interesting insight into Bhattacharya's and his fellow travellers approach to doing science: 1 Decide what the answer is before you do the experiments 2 Get funding from rich bloke who likes what your pre-conceived results will be 3 Conduct dodgy experiments to prove what you set out to prove all along He's doing the rounds on Talk Radio for a reason - his career as a serious scientist is over so he's milking a living out of telling a tame audience what they want to hear. Are you talking about Dr. Fauci and his ilk? Your points 1, 2 & 3 apply just as well!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 16:21:21 GMT
Will this be this Senator Bob Hall (see here and here) or just some random bald bloke with a microphone: Senator Bob Hall comes from Edgewood, a city about 60 miles from Dallas. His Senate Bill 1669 is supported by Texans for Vaccine Choice (TFVC), an anti-vaccine Facebook group that formed a political action committee. Bob Hall was elected to the state Senate in 2014. A D Magazine article recalls that Hall won by calling his opponent a pawn of Satan and describing public schools as communist indoctrination. A Texas Monthly profile explains Hall spend most of his time “on the problem of electromagnetic pulse weapons, or EMPs, a quack threat to homeland security derided by most credible arms control experts and a frequent plot device in pulp novels in which strong men defeat foreign threats.” Senator Hall is also working to curb voting rights through Senate Bill 1612. Hall is also known for defending white nationalist Ray Meyers and for his false claim that sex education programs are “tools used by abortion clinics to drum up business.” So where does that come from? Are you taking the word of some radical left wing journo? Have you seen the protests and reaction to some of the proposed school curriculums? Have you seen the bill that plans to curb voting rights? Do you present ID when boarding a plane or sometimes even doing a $10 credit card transaction? Do you think people should be allowed to vote without presenting ID? Anyone, (besides Joe Biden), wins an election because people voted for them, not because they called their opponents names (which btw seems to be what this article is doing itself). This Bob Hall sounds like a solid salt-of-the-earth fellow! I'd vote for him!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 16:11:31 GMT
I think we had better be careful here, maybe a bit too soon to be opening up fully, 21st June is only the middle of summer. I think a bit closer to autumn/winter we can expect to fully reopen just when flu season kicks back in Sounds like something from Monty Python!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 16:08:30 GMT
You are taking medical advice from Tucker Carlson? Good luck with that. 3,000 people died after how many were vaccinated? He doesn't even bother to state how many would die in a population that size anyway or provide any evidence to demonstrate a link between those deaths and the vaccine other than to vaguely reference the blood clot issue where the numbers are known and far lower. It's a scare piece by a right wing broadcaster promoting a political agenda and has no scientific credibility. That's no eye-opening it's eyebrow raising. A) Reading an article is not "taking Medical Advice" B) He is simply asking the question "What's going on?" When you see that fewer people have died from flu vaccinations in the past 20 years than have died from Covid vaccinations in just 4 months, I'd say that you would have to be incredibly naïve to simply say "They're safe" based on the sayso of the likes of politicians or flip-flop Fauci, who has investments in the vaccine and has also been connected to funding of the Wuhan lab. C) This is based on the USA only using VAERS data. About 50% of all Americans get the flu shot each year (multiply that by 20 years). As of May 20, 48.4% of the US population over 18 is vaccinated. Politics aside, Do you have any suggestions why the DEATH rate according to the CDC run VAERS data is about 20 times higher than for the flu vaccine?
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 1:26:20 GMT
Apologies for late response, I'm a little short of time lately. We've all got much better things to do mate! I'm really interested in understanding where you're coming from, but we can take it slow. This weekend I went on a bit of a beer tour with my new "hop passport", half price on your first two pints at a load of places. Lovely. This exercise is an effort to understand why we think differently and I believe I have the answer. I believe that not all lives have the same "potential" (for want of a better word). When a person is old, they have (hopefully) achieved/contributed much and are often at peace with the thought of dying. It is also unlikely that a person of say 98 will not achieve/contribute as much in their remaining years as a person of 20 will achieve/contribute in their remaining years. On the other hand, a new born baby's potential is massive. All life is important to me, however if it were to come down to me having to choose whether to save either an old codger (like me) or a new born baby, I would choose the new born baby. I think we agree about that actually! I've followed plenty of research that uses "quality adjusted life years" (" QALYs") for decisions. If I had one dose of a medicine and I could save a random 2-year old or random 90-year old I'd always save the 2-year old. But let's say the average 90-year old has a year left and the average 2-year old has 80 years left. I'd save the baby over a couple of 90-year olds, but if I'm following total years or "potential" then should I save the baby over 79 oldies? But then if the choice is baby vs. 81 oldies, do I have to flip to saving the oldies? I expect we agree on the principle but there might be differences in the exact tradeoffs we'd pick and that seems like a hell of a rabbithole to me. My question: What percentage chance of picking up a serious complication do you think is acceptable for you to agree to receive the vaccine? I snipped the other bit because the post is already too long... I'd take a highly effective vaccine with a 10% chance of death if the alternative was definitely getting 50% deadly ebola next month. So it's not the absolute risk of complications that affects my decisions, it's the net cost-benefit. Question: given that vaccines prevent infection, symptoms and reduce spread, then do you agree that if fewer people are vaccinated then that means there will be more infections. Not just in those who chose not to be vaccinated, but also among those who have not had the chance to be vaccinated yet? It is so easy to brush aside some of the conspiracy theorists and assume they are making things up. Check out this piece ...... from Fox News - Conservative = Yes, but certainly a credible source of facts also. www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-how-many-americans-have-died-after-taking-the-covid-vaccineEye-opening!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 0:08:44 GMT
Come on then which 20 of the richest 30 clubs in the world 5 years ago are now in the same position as us now indeed id struggle to name 20 clubs that have such a spectacular wasted opportunity as us in the las 20 years and we haven't finished yet , im not sure people understand the true context of where we were and the opportunity it offers in terms of financial wealth and backing and how that compares to our history we have literally thrown away the golden opportunity of our history Sorry for the delay in my reply Benj. Leeds United Newcastle United Aston Villa Nottingham Forest West Ham Wolves Blackburn Rovers Sunderland Middlesbrough QPR Birmingham City Norwich City Derby County Coventry City Leicester City Portsmouth Fulham West Brom Southampton Cardiff City 20 clubs there who have suffered relegation from the top flight in the Premier League era. All with similar stories to tell as us. Most, if not all of those clubs would consider themselves bigger traditionally than we are. Some of them have dusted themselves down and come back, whereas others are still struggling now. Rather than continually harping back to mistakes made with the benefit of hindsight, I really do think it’s better to look forward. I find it very surprising that you seem to think our stay in the top flight was set in stone? If that was the case, please explain the meaning behind the phase “gravity crocodile”, and also please tell me why, if our position was so secure, you predicted relegation for us every season for ten years? ROFL! Hear! Hear!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 25, 2021 0:07:31 GMT
So given untold riches in the last 15 years Scholes is presiding over a business that for the last 3 years is performing significantly below its average since 1888 A quite remarkable level of utter incompetence Not true. This table simply shows results played in the top division, not that we are 23rd in the country out of all clubs/all matches. If you want to get a true reflection of how much we are underperforming, you'd need to take an "average league position" (taken over all 92 positions) - eg 1st in second tier would be 21st overall today, but may have been 25th in times gone by. I bet we are still a little below "average", but not by a whole lot.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 24, 2021 17:13:17 GMT
Fascinating listening to Professor Jay Bhattacharya on talkradio, cancelled by the mainstream media but not silenced. Quote - "lockdown was the thing we chose because we couldn't think of something better rather than using reason". He goes on to explain that with time lockdown will be viewed as a huge huge failure, highlighting the way that Florida followed the process put forward by many world leading scientists, including the GBD which emphasised the need to shield the vulnerable while the majority continue life unaffected. Consequently Florida has ended up with less deaths than states in permanent lockdown such as California while not experiencing the huge suffering caused by shutting down society. Been saying it all along as have so many on here...blanket lockdowns will go down in history as a catastrophic failing on society. You know that I agree with most of what you say, but more than a catastrophic failing, I think the Covid response will go down as the most pathetic abdication of free will to power mad totalitarians ever.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 24, 2021 17:10:11 GMT
Based on your own answers to my rhetorical questions, unless everyone was in complete isolation before and after the trip, there is absolutely no way to prove that someone contracted Covid while on the plane. There is a way. You simply test the virus's genetic material and look at how closely they match in each person. I doubt they did that, but you can be reasonably sure by looking at the date of symptom onset. Even if you looked at symptom onset (or genetic material), firstly most flights are less than the 24 hours available in a day, leaving a lot of time to have been infected. Secondly when travelling, there are multiple opportunities to "interact" with others - people handling your bags, tickets money - eating at high volume facilities, taxi, etc etc. I'm not saying people don't get covid from being on a plane, just that anyone who says that it's proven it came from the plane trip is probably sucking stuff out of thin air.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 24, 2021 13:51:26 GMT
Did they really become infected on the plane?? does a negative test mean you 100% did not have it? Does a positive test mean you contracted it in the last few hours? I think that's just someone fueling an agenda. To answer your questions: Yes a number of them did become infected on the plane. No a negative test doesn't 100% guarantee that you haven't got it. A positive test means you have the virus, it doesn't indicate when you got it. Essentially it means that one person had covid prior to getting on the plane, but the test gave a false negative result. When on the plane that person then passed the virus on to others. Based on your own answers to my rhetorical questions, unless everyone was in complete isolation before and after the trip, there is absolutely no way to prove that someone contracted Covid while on the plane.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 22:34:19 GMT
I live in Texas and it's been great throughout the pandemic. The only time I wear a mask is when I go into a store or have to fly. Everywhere else has been business as usual. Restaurants were closed for about 2-3 months and then open for indoor dining. Wear a mask to the table and then take it off when seated. You can pick out the liberals so easily, they're the ones riding alone in their car with a mask on; the couple wearing masks walking the dog that has a "doggie" mask on; the people who look at you in absolute horror as if you're a rapist if you're hiking in nature and pass within 30 feet of them. I have never seen a more pathetic over-the-top response to anything else in my whole life. I'd love to live in the USA, not sure which state though I'd be suited too. They're definitely not piling the bodies up then like Pelosi said? It is still the greatest country in the world (IMO)! All this crap about teaching people to hate the country is a load of hooey driven by a small (but powerful) cabal. I would not swap (except maybe Madeira or Barbados) Lived in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Georgia again and last 2 years Texas. Beautiful place, but I'd never live in PA again. Georgia is more my style, green, tall trees. Texas is a little too dry, but lovely people.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 16:56:14 GMT
I have seen a Big Cat at large in Somerset, from a distance of about 100 yards. It could not be mistaken for anything else. I reported my sighting to a website dedicated to recording and reporting big cat appearances through out the uk and it was literally that, a Website on Big Cat sightings. My contribution was some years ago and last time I looked the site no longer appears to be active. Shame. I saw what I am convinced was a large cat like creature about 3 years ago. I was working in Telford at the time and I was driving home at about 5.30 pm along the scenic route back to Newcastle. On my left hand side about 100 to 150 yards away I saw a large black creature moving very slowly across a recently cut field. It was a lovely sunny summers evening and I slowed down slightly for a better look...it was jet black...it’s belly was very low to the ground and it had a huge tail. I was going to stop but there was a guy in a van close behind me and it was dangerous to suddenly stop as we were travelling at approximately 50mph...I did notice through my rear view mirror that the guy behind was staring into that field too. I’ve told a few people about this and most laugh but I know what I saw...no chance was it a dog...it was definitely a very large cat. I understand the laugh bit entirely! I believe there are some Lions from Great Britain that will be seen (and slaughtered) in South Africa later this year! Should be a good laugh.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 16:50:19 GMT
Just got back from my vacation hiking through the Great Smoky (Don't ask me what "Smocky" means, that's how they spell it here!) Mountains. Wonderful! Not a mask in sight! Related to your QALYS, I imagine there would be a "tipping point" (maybe 10-15 or something) where younger than that is not as "valuable" as someone at the "tipping point" and someone older than that is also not as "valuable". I personally don't like the idea simply because it's a slippery slope to then mandating termination if you're "x" years old or have "y" condition. I'd argue that you did not answer the question I asked, so I'll rephrase it: What percentage chance of picking up a serious complication do you think is acceptable for you to agree to receive the CURRENT COVID-19 vaccine? (Not Ebola, not some other exotic deadly disease, Covid-19, and not death but a serious complication). As far as your question, Your question is a little ambiguous. Firstly, the rate of infections would not necessarily increase in the un-vaccinated population. There would be fewer people that contract or carry Covid and therefore I would argue that the rate would continue to go down compared to previous levels where the unvaccinated pool was larger. Secondly, I do not believe that the severity of a flu season can be directly correlated to the number of flu vaccines successfully given? I'd argue no and use 2020 as an example. One of the lightest flu seasons for years and yet flu vaccines given were actually down from normal. Of course there were the lockdowns, mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing, etc which were major contributors to the decline - But that goes to prove that vaccines are not the be all and end all of dealing with a disease. Finally, one could argue that the person who gets the vaccine simply to earn a reward, (e.g. ability to travel, watch a football match, or as in New York, a free packet of fries), is an inherently more reckless/selfish person than the person that carefully weighs up the risks and benefits of having the vaccine. Therefore, perhaps those that decline the vaccine are more cautious and more likely to practice common-sense safeguards than those who act purely out of their own desires, thereby reducing the infection rate anyway. Ya bastard, should have been getting married there next month! Every cloud I suppose😏 If you're in US, GO! It was absolutely breathtaking! Refreshes your soul! If you're not in US, sorry you can't do it, but..... I'm sure there are equally spectacular places in the UK (or wherever!) Try getting married on that glass lookout in Madeira!
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 16:46:34 GMT
Pro lockdowners and pro maskers don't want to talk about Texas, Florida, Sweden to name a few. All three, on balance, have been big success stories. History will look at them with great fondness during an era of crazed, totalitarian panic. It's eye opening though that the news don't want to report on it, just goes to show their story is set in stone, doom, gloom and nothing else, they fully intend to keep this thing going or they would be reporting success stories and reassuring public as things get back to normal. Fear is power I live in Texas and it's been great throughout the pandemic. The only time I wear a mask is when I go into a store or have to fly. Everywhere else has been business as usual. Restaurants were closed for about 2-3 months and then open for indoor dining. Wear a mask to the table and then take it off when seated. You can pick out the liberals so easily, they're the ones riding alone in their car with a mask on; the couple wearing masks walking the dog that has a "doggie" mask on; the people who look at you in absolute horror as if you're a rapist if you're hiking in nature and pass within 30 feet of them. I have never seen a more pathetic over-the-top response to anything else in my whole life.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 16:39:26 GMT
the mass events where everyone attending had to have had a negative test, so no virus would have been present at them ? Several instances of people becoming infected on planes where all passengers provided a negative covid test... Did they really become infected on the plane?? does a negative test mean you 100% did not have it? Does a positive test mean you contracted it in the last few hours? I think that's just someone fueling an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 16:35:55 GMT
It's always shock value wording Double Mutant Mutant Super Mutant Incredible Hulk variant etc... It's a virus, it mutates, it's normal. That wouldn't panic people though, would it? Classic fucking Sentinel, shit rag. Tbf it’s most newspapers What happens when they run out of hyperboles? Wacko Sensationalist Journo <Thinks> "Hmmm, what adjective can I use to show how bad this is????? Mutant? - No, too plain; Super Mutant? - No, not bad enough; Racist? - No, after all everything is racist; AHHH! I have it ..." <writes> Anti-Woke variant
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 23, 2021 16:26:04 GMT
Apologies for late response, I'm a little short of time lately. We've all got much better things to do mate! I'm really interested in understanding where you're coming from, but we can take it slow. This weekend I went on a bit of a beer tour with my new "hop passport", half price on your first two pints at a load of places. Lovely. This exercise is an effort to understand why we think differently and I believe I have the answer. I believe that not all lives have the same "potential" (for want of a better word). When a person is old, they have (hopefully) achieved/contributed much and are often at peace with the thought of dying. It is also unlikely that a person of say 98 will not achieve/contribute as much in their remaining years as a person of 20 will achieve/contribute in their remaining years. On the other hand, a new born baby's potential is massive. All life is important to me, however if it were to come down to me having to choose whether to save either an old codger (like me) or a new born baby, I would choose the new born baby. I think we agree about that actually! I've followed plenty of research that uses "quality adjusted life years" (" QALYs") for decisions. If I had one dose of a medicine and I could save a random 2-year old or random 90-year old I'd always save the 2-year old. But let's say the average 90-year old has a year left and the average 2-year old has 80 years left. I'd save the baby over a couple of 90-year olds, but if I'm following total years or "potential" then should I save the baby over 79 oldies? But then if the choice is baby vs. 81 oldies, do I have to flip to saving the oldies? I expect we agree on the principle but there might be differences in the exact tradeoffs we'd pick and that seems like a hell of a rabbithole to me. My question: What percentage chance of picking up a serious complication do you think is acceptable for you to agree to receive the vaccine? I snipped the other bit because the post is already too long... I'd take a highly effective vaccine with a 10% chance of death if the alternative was definitely getting 50% deadly ebola next month. So it's not the absolute risk of complications that affects my decisions, it's the net cost-benefit. Question: given that vaccines prevent infection, symptoms and reduce spread, then do you agree that if fewer people are vaccinated then that means there will be more infections. Not just in those who chose not to be vaccinated, but also among those who have not had the chance to be vaccinated yet? Just got back from my vacation hiking through the Great Smoky (Don't ask me what "Smocky" means, that's how they spell it here!) Mountains. Wonderful! Not a mask in sight! Related to your QALYS, I imagine there would be a "tipping point" (maybe 10-15 or something) where younger than that is not as "valuable" as someone at the "tipping point" and someone older than that is also not as "valuable". I personally don't like the idea simply because it's a slippery slope to then mandating termination if you're "x" years old or have "y" condition. I'd argue that you did not answer the question I asked, so I'll rephrase it: What percentage chance of picking up a serious complication do you think is acceptable for you to agree to receive the CURRENT COVID-19 vaccine? (Not Ebola, not some other exotic deadly disease, Covid-19, and not death but a serious complication). As far as your question, Your question is a little ambiguous. Firstly, the rate of infections would not necessarily increase in the un-vaccinated population. There would be fewer people that contract or carry Covid and therefore I would argue that the rate would continue to go down compared to previous levels where the unvaccinated pool was larger. Secondly, I do not believe that the severity of a flu season can be directly correlated to the number of flu vaccines successfully given? I'd argue no and use 2020 as an example. One of the lightest flu seasons for years and yet flu vaccines given were actually down from normal. Of course there were the lockdowns, mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing, etc which were major contributors to the decline - But that goes to prove that vaccines are not the be all and end all of dealing with a disease. Finally, one could argue that the person who gets the vaccine simply to earn a reward, (e.g. ability to travel, watch a football match, or as in New York, a free packet of fries), is an inherently more reckless/selfish person than the person that carefully weighs up the risks and benefits of having the vaccine. Therefore, perhaps those that decline the vaccine are more cautious and more likely to practice common-sense safeguards than those who act purely out of their own desires, thereby reducing the infection rate anyway.
|
|