|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 1, 2020 8:49:01 GMT
It seems that the very people most set against lock downs are the same people who are anti vaccination or at least the most nervous about taking it. I don't get it - is having the ability to infect and kill others part of the definition of individual liberty? Is it every Englishman's god given right to incubate and spread disease? The very people accusing those reluctantly going along with the government's cack handed attempts to save lives as being fearful are the one's most afraid of a pin prick. It's weird. How many people have you killed so far this year? Nobody to my knowledge - but if I've been asymptomatic I could have infected and killed someone with covid without me knowing it. How about you? And do you intend not to take the vaccine in order to maintain your inalienable right to infect and kill people with a now curable disease? |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 1, 2020 9:03:26 GMT
How many people have you killed so far this year? Nobody to my knowledge - but if I've been asymptomatic I could have infected and killed someone with covid without me knowing it. How about you? And do you intend not to take the vaccine in order to maintain your inalienable right to infect and kill people with a now curable disease? So you've spent all year potentially infecting & killing everyone you've been near this year, rather selfish of you don't you think? Or did you feel it was your right to infect & kill half of Leicester? |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 1, 2020 9:28:10 GMT
The inconsistency is staggering ... It's an absolute shitshow Paul. Do cinemas sell alcohol, can't say I've seen it, if they do I'm going ? The thing is, theatres and sports venues will be open for a limited time and there is something being shown for you to concentrate on, when that's finished you leave, people tend not to be getting drunk (football some do but not under current restrictions around nearby pubs being open for drinks with meals only) This person and their sister would be fine, but we've all seen the pub mentality in some places when they first reopened, you may think you are safe but some pissed up person will be forgetting any cv19 rules |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Dec 1, 2020 9:35:13 GMT
I've no problem at all with vaccines that have been proved effective over many years. I am however far more cautious about these Covid ones simply because I'm assuming the usual long timescale rules are in place for a reason (if they aren't necessary, why the hell aren't we rolling out cancer drugs etc far quicker). The fact that the pharmaceutical companies involved have insisted on not being liable if any long term problems occur hardly fills you with confidence either. Is the drug safe or isn't it? - sounds very much like a 'probably/maybe' to me. The length of time for vaccine approval in normal times is because of administrative and production delays - writing and processing grant applications, recruitment, bureaucracy, competition for research equipment and manufacturing facilities etc. Most of the elapsed time is actually dead time - nothing happens. For the coronavirus vaccine much of that dead time has been eliminated - in particular researchers have just been given the money to get on with it and the pharmaceutical industry have made their facilities available early (AstraZeneca have produced the vaccine in large quantities before the results were produced knowing that they might have to pour the stuff down the drain if the results weren't positive which they wouldn't normally do). Where they haven't cut corners is safety - the vaccines have gone through the same rigorous testing regime any other vaccine would have done and are as safe as any other vaccine at this stage of testing - and the testing has to pass the usual standards by the relevant independent authorities in order to get approval. It seems that the very people most set against lock downs are the same people who are anti vaccination or at least the most nervous about taking it. I don't get it - is having the ability to infect and kill others part of the definition of individual liberty? Is it every Englishman's god given right to incubate and spread disease? The very people accusing those reluctantly going along with the government's cack handed attempts to save lives as being fearful are the one's most afraid of a pin prick. It's weird. Quote from a few months back: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” said Ruud Dobber, a member of AstraZeneca’s senior executive team, as quoted by Reuters. “In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest.” Does that sound like they are 100% confident of its medium/long term safety? - all new drugs would have an element of risk but when you are intending to inject a large proportion of the world's population, a tiny percent showing side effects could be a large number of people. I'm more surprised people are simply accepting its perfectly fine - scientists, through no fault of their own, have been speculating (guessing) on the effects of this virus for the past 9 months as they haven't had complete information to work with, so its perfectly feasible a vaccine could have unseen consequences down the line. By the time its available in the Spring, the virus will probably be in decline anyway and the vaccine will end up being rolled out like the flu jab in the autumn to the people considered susceptible. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 1, 2020 9:47:21 GMT
Nobody to my knowledge - but if I've been asymptomatic I could have infected and killed someone with covid without me knowing it. How about you? And do you intend not to take the vaccine in order to maintain your inalienable right to infect and kill people with a now curable disease? So you've spent all year potentially infecting & killing everyone you've been near this year, rather selfish of you don't you think? Or did you feel it was your right to infect & kill half of Leicester? Correct - I have spent all year potentially infecting and killing I've been near this year. And so have you and so as everyone else. I have also repeatedly said that the government should not go for zero covid and I've not locked myself away in perfect isolation or called for anyone to do the same. I also myself morally responsible for any deaths I may have caused either directly or indirectly as a result of my support for the government's non-covid policy - something the vast majority of people on here have refused to accept. It was not my right to kill half of Leicester and it was not the right of half of Leicester to kill me. I don't consider either party selfish because there was no choice. In effect there was a tacit agreement that in the circumstances we had little choice but to potentially infect and kill each other. But to deny that was what we were all doing is just ducking a grim fact of life. The vaccine is a game changer. I can now choose to do something that massively reduces the chance of me infecting and killing others, If a choose not to take the vaccine then I absolutely agree with you I'd be acting selfishly and would be a menace to the good people of Leicester, So how many people do you think you may have casually killed and are you actually bothered? And do you intend to take the vaccine or do you intend to continue to be a threat to the health of the people in your locality? |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 1, 2020 9:56:04 GMT
The length of time for vaccine approval in normal times is because of administrative and production delays - writing and processing grant applications, recruitment, bureaucracy, competition for research equipment and manufacturing facilities etc. Most of the elapsed time is actually dead time - nothing happens. For the coronavirus vaccine much of that dead time has been eliminated - in particular researchers have just been given the money to get on with it and the pharmaceutical industry have made their facilities available early (AstraZeneca have produced the vaccine in large quantities before the results were produced knowing that they might have to pour the stuff down the drain if the results weren't positive which they wouldn't normally do). Where they haven't cut corners is safety - the vaccines have gone through the same rigorous testing regime any other vaccine would have done and are as safe as any other vaccine at this stage of testing - and the testing has to pass the usual standards by the relevant independent authorities in order to get approval. It seems that the very people most set against lock downs are the same people who are anti vaccination or at least the most nervous about taking it. I don't get it - is having the ability to infect and kill others part of the definition of individual liberty? Is it every Englishman's god given right to incubate and spread disease? The very people accusing those reluctantly going along with the government's cack handed attempts to save lives as being fearful are the one's most afraid of a pin prick. It's weird. Quote from a few months back: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” said Ruud Dobber, a member of AstraZeneca’s senior executive team, as quoted by Reuters. “In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest.” Does that sound like they are 100% confident of its medium/long term safety? - all new drugs would have an element of risk but when you are intending to inject a large proportion of the world's population, a tiny percent showing side effects could be a large number of people. I'm more surprised people are simply accepting its perfectly fine - scientists, through no fault of their own, have been speculating (guessing) on the effects of this virus for the past 9 months as they haven't had complete information to work with, so its perfectly feasible a vaccine could have unseen consequences down the line. By the time its available in the Spring, the virus will probably be in decline anyway and the vaccine will end up being rolled out like the flu jab in the autumn to the people considered susceptible. As it happens, I suspect by the time its actually available, the virus will be fizzling out for the season and it'll simply end up being given in a similar way to the flu jab Every vaccine that goes into the rollout stage has risks attached - no trial ever covers every combination of factors that exist in the general population. Researchers continue to monitor the vaccines after rollout and vaccines will get pulled if there are adverse effects. But even then from a public health perspective if a vaccine is way less dangerous than the disease it is preventing what are you going to do? Withdraw the vaccine and have more people die of the original disease? You are right about it being rolled out like the flu jab next autumn (and possibly every year after that) but are you proposing that lock downs continue into the summer rather than implement a vaccination programme that might mean going back to normal far earlier? Or just allow more people to die of covid on the grounds it's more "natural" than having a vaccination? |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 1, 2020 10:15:10 GMT
Papers worth of published evidence from responses taken from thousands of people are refuted by a single post on social media that then gets circulated far more than the published evidence. The Wakefield fiasco, which was far more sophisticated than that example is still having effects to this day on measles outbreaks. But with the nature of social media these days that level of sophistication isn’t needed. It’s difficult to see a resolution to it that works and doesn’t stray into something like authoritarianism on one side and ulterior motives/misinformation on the other, and I’m not just talking about Covid here. It’s a very concerning situation, and to be honest I can only see it getting worse. Excellent post. And the 'shoutier' that single social media post the more effective it is and the more it gets circulated. I really don't know what the answer is. Do you meet 'shouty' with 'shouty' and dumb down the debate so everyone is playing the same sport or do you continue to intellectualise the thing and hope to take the moral high ground? It's going to get worse as you say. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Dec 1, 2020 10:18:40 GMT
Quote from a few months back: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” said Ruud Dobber, a member of AstraZeneca’s senior executive team, as quoted by Reuters. “In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest.” Does that sound like they are 100% confident of its medium/long term safety? - all new drugs would have an element of risk but when you are intending to inject a large proportion of the world's population, a tiny percent showing side effects could be a large number of people. I'm more surprised people are simply accepting its perfectly fine - scientists, through no fault of their own, have been speculating (guessing) on the effects of this virus for the past 9 months as they haven't had complete information to work with, so its perfectly feasible a vaccine could have unseen consequences down the line. By the time its available in the Spring, the virus will probably be in decline anyway and the vaccine will end up being rolled out like the flu jab in the autumn to the people considered susceptible. As it happens, I suspect by the time its actually available, the virus will be fizzling out for the season and it'll simply end up being given in a similar way to the flu jab Every vaccine that goes into the rollout stage has risks attached - no trial ever covers every combination of factors that exist in the general population. Researchers continue to monitor the vaccines after rollout and vaccines will get pulled if there are adverse effects. But even then from a public health perspective if a vaccine is way less dangerous than the disease it is preventing what are you going to do? Withdraw the vaccine and have more people die of the original disease? You are right about it being rolled out like the flu jab next autumn (and possibly every year after that) but are you proposing that lock downs continue into the summer rather than implement a vaccination programme that might mean going back to normal far earlier? Or just allow more people to die of covid on the grounds it's more "natural" than having a vaccination? The vaccine will be rolled out to the at risk groups as soon as its available and I suspect the greater the risk, the higher the uptake will be. A much easier decision if you are in your 80s than if you are healthy and in your 20s. No doubt it will end up being offered to everyone apart from children but this would be much further down the line and it may well be unnecessary by the time its available if the susceptible are already protected and no longer filling up hospitals. I guess the government will be keen on a mass vaccination programme (whether necessary or not) though simply to rebuild confidence and allow a 'grand re-opening' of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 1, 2020 10:27:59 GMT
Can't quite get over how disgusting and insulting it is that Labour aren't voting on this. A decision that will cripple the lives of the very people who voted for these cunts... While they all pick up their huge public funded salaries. This must go down as one of the biggest acts of cowardice on parliamentary record.
Just when you think no party can possibly get any worse than this floundering Conservative party and you get Labour- a party that refuses to vote on one of the most critical decisions of our lifetime. I'd rather the cunts voted in favour of it than to not vote at all. Yet again Labour holding the people with absolute contempt.
Fuck me we need a new mainstream party in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 1, 2020 10:33:26 GMT
I have already on several occasions on here said I’m prepared to have a vaccine when offered
Due to my underlying health conditions
But if I was told I must have it then I would give it a second thought
Nothing should be compulsory
Advised yes
But not forced
The ability of independent thought and action makes us what we are
As for people moaning about people choosing not to have the vaccine what’s the problem if you and your loved ones have had the jab you’re safe
|
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 1, 2020 10:37:38 GMT
Can't quite get over how disgusting and insulting it is that Labour aren't voting on this. A decision that will cripple the lives of the very people who voted for these cunts... While they all pick up their huge public funded salaries. This must go down as one of the biggest acts of cowardice on parliamentary record. Just when you think no party can possibly get any worse than this floundering Conservative party and you get Labour- a party that refuses to vote on one of the most critical decisions of our lifetime. I'd rather the cunts voted in favour of it than to not vote at all. Yet again Labour holding the people with absolute contempt. Fuck me we need a new mainstream party in this country. Hope starmers got some tcp to treat those splinters |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 1, 2020 10:53:38 GMT
Can't quite get over how disgusting and insulting it is that Labour aren't voting on this. A decision that will cripple the lives of the very people who voted for these cunts... While they all pick up their huge public funded salaries. This must go down as one of the biggest acts of cowardice on parliamentary record. Just when you think no party can possibly get any worse than this floundering Conservative party and you get Labour- a party that refuses to vote on one of the most critical decisions of our lifetime. I'd rather the cunts voted in favour of it than to not vote at all. Yet again Labour holding the people with absolute contempt. Fuck me we need a new mainstream party in this country. Hope starmers got some tcp to treat those splinters Labour were never going to vote against this because they agree with the government on the restrictions. They abstained in protest at the lack of funding for the poorest areas in support of their constituents. It wasn't the most critical decision in our lifetime and Labour knew exactly what they were doing in abstaining - which was allowing the vote to pass. The point of the opposition is to hold the government to account - not to vote against the government for the hell of it. However I agree there is the need for a party that represents the sizable minority in this issue. Roll on PR. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Dec 1, 2020 10:53:40 GMT
Can't quite get over how disgusting and insulting it is that Labour aren't voting on this. A decision that will cripple the lives of the very people who voted for these cunts... While they all pick up their huge public funded salaries. This must go down as one of the biggest acts of cowardice on parliamentary record. Just when you think no party can possibly get any worse than this floundering Conservative party and you get Labour- a party that refuses to vote on one of the most critical decisions of our lifetime. I'd rather the cunts voted in favour of it than to not vote at all. Yet again Labour holding the people with absolute contempt. Fuck me we need a new mainstream party in this country. Genuine question - what would actually happen if the govt was defeated? Would lockdown continue indefinity? Woulg govt have to come up vwith an alternative within a given time period - in which case what rules prevail in the meantime? In the absence of any approved restrictions do no restrictions apply? |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 1, 2020 11:28:58 GMT
Can't quite get over how disgusting and insulting it is that Labour aren't voting on this. A decision that will cripple the lives of the very people who voted for these cunts... While they all pick up their huge public funded salaries. This must go down as one of the biggest acts of cowardice on parliamentary record. Just when you think no party can possibly get any worse than this floundering Conservative party and you get Labour- a party that refuses to vote on one of the most critical decisions of our lifetime. I'd rather the cunts voted in favour of it than to not vote at all. Yet again Labour holding the people with absolute contempt. Fuck me we need a new mainstream party in this country. Genuine question - what would actually happen if the govt was defeated? Would lockdown continue indefinity? Woulg govt have to come up vwith an alternative within a given time period - in which case what rules prevail in the meantime? In the absence of any approved restrictions do no restrictions apply? In law there would be no restrictions until the government got something passed which would probably only be hours |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 1, 2020 11:36:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 1, 2020 11:46:27 GMT
Saw it last night, we have areas that have been abandoned for a generation or so in this country, needs a massive shift in community education on teaching these people how to live, cook eat. Some of them look so haggered for an age they shouldn't |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 1, 2020 11:56:41 GMT
Can't quite get over how disgusting and insulting it is that Labour aren't voting on this. A decision that will cripple the lives of the very people who voted for these cunts... While they all pick up their huge public funded salaries. This must go down as one of the biggest acts of cowardice on parliamentary record. Just when you think no party can possibly get any worse than this floundering Conservative party and you get Labour- a party that refuses to vote on one of the most critical decisions of our lifetime. I'd rather the cunts voted in favour of it than to not vote at all. Yet again Labour holding the people with absolute contempt. Fuck me we need a new mainstream party in this country. Genuine question - what would actually happen if the govt was defeated? Would lockdown continue indefinity? Woulg govt have to come up vwith an alternative within a given time period - in which case what rules prevail in the meantime? In the absence of any approved restrictions do no restrictions apply? Knowing this lot, I doubt they've planned for defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 1, 2020 11:58:33 GMT
The pro lockdown woke middle class elites working from home posting their tik tok videos and drinking their soy lattes won't be the ones who suffer. As with all these things the poor get poorer.... We know how it goes. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 1, 2020 12:00:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Dec 1, 2020 12:43:25 GMT
Hope starmers got some tcp to treat those splinters Labour were never going to vote against this because they agree with the government on the restrictions. They abstained in protest at the lack of funding for the poorest areas in support of their constituents. It wasn't the most critical decision in our lifetime and Labour knew exactly what they were doing in abstaining - which was allowing the vote to pass. The point of the opposition is to hold the government to account - not to vote against the government for the hell of it. However I agree there is the need for a party that represents the sizable minority in this issue. Roll on PR. Complete kop out by Starmer He should vote for it or against and put forward his own proposals You’d have thought they’d learned their lesson after Brexit but obviously not I had high hopes that Starmer would be the saviour of the Labour Party and could provide a decent alternative to the Tories ( something they never were with Corbyn). Time yet but his actions to date have been rather underwhelming |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 1, 2020 12:58:35 GMT
I caught that piece on the news last night, it was as grim a testimony to a place time has forgotten as you will ever see. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Dec 1, 2020 13:09:39 GMT
Papers worth of published evidence from responses taken from thousands of people are refuted by a single post on social media that then gets circulated far more than the published evidence. The Wakefield fiasco, which was far more sophisticated than that example is still having effects to this day on measles outbreaks. But with the nature of social media these days that level of sophistication isn’t needed. It’s difficult to ee a resolution to it that works and doesn’t stray into something like authoritarianism on one side and ulterior motives/misinformation on the other, and I’m not just talking about Covid here. It’s a very concerning situation, and to be honest I can only see it getting worse. Excellent post. And the 'shoutier' that single social media post the more effective it is and the more it gets circulated. I really don't know what the answer is. Do you meet 'shouty' with 'shouty' and dumb down the debate so everyone is playing the same sport or do you continue to intellectualise the thing and hope to take the moral high ground? It's going to get worse as you say. In part I see as this a generational problem and the newness of the technology - we are all behaving like children with a toy nobody really understands. I think the answer lies in education and given the web is such an important resource and isn't going away I can see the skills involved in critically assessing information and understanding agendas becoming a key part of the school curriculum. As a generation we've missed that boat - hopefully the generation who have grown up with this new toy will understand it better. The thing that worries me most is the lack of respect for genuine expertise and the belief that at the end of the day everything is an opinion. There are people on this thread who genuinely believe that some random post from a bloke with an irrelevant degree flogging a diet book has as valid an opinion on epidemiology as someone who has spent their professional life studying epidemiology and is recognised as such within that academic community. There has been an erosion of trust in arbitrary authority associated with the class system - which is great and is nowhere near complete (only in the UK could two of the last three Prime Ministers been at the same school and an upper middle class public school educated stock broker be considered a man of the people) but that has spilled over into a lack of trust in people and institutions who actually know what they are talking about. Unfortunately a post on a QAnon website is considered by some as valid as a scholarly article in Nature. I'm all for political democracy (which hasn't happened) but at the moment rather than address that pressing need the internet appears to have focused on democratising access to bullshit without even offering a scratch and sniff option. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 1, 2020 13:11:15 GMT
Gove really is a waste of oxygen isn't he?
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Dec 1, 2020 13:26:15 GMT
Excellent post. And the 'shoutier' that single social media post the more effective it is and the more it gets circulated. I really don't know what the answer is. Do you meet 'shouty' with 'shouty' and dumb down the debate so everyone is playing the same sport or do you continue to intellectualise the thing and hope to take the moral high ground? It's going to get worse as you say. In part I see as this a generational problem and the newness of the technology - we are all behaving like children with a toy nobody really understands. I think the answer lies in education and given the web is such an important resource and isn't going away I can see the skills involved in critically assessing information and understanding agendas becoming a key part of the school curriculum. As a generation we've missed that boat - hopefully the generation who have grown up with this new toy will understand it better. The thing that worries me most is the lack of respect for genuine expertise and the belief that at the end of the day everything is an opinion. There are people on this thread who genuinely believe that some random post from a bloke with an irrelevant degree flogging a diet book has as valid an opinion on epidemiology as someone who has spent their professional life studying epidemiology and is recognised as such within that academic community. There has been an erosion of trust in arbitrary authority associated with the class system - which is great and is nowhere near complete (only in the UK could two of the last three Prime Ministers been at the same school and an upper middle class public school educated stock broker be considered a man of the people) but that has spilled over into a lack of trust in people and institutions who actually know what they are talking about. Unfortunately a post on a QAnon website is considered by some as valid as a scholarly article in Nature. I'm all for political democracy (which hasn't happened) but at the moment rather than address that pressing need the internet appears to have focused on democratising access to bullshit without even offering a scratch and sniff option. Do you mean like Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson, Sinatra Gupta et. al. ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2020 13:29:01 GMT
Gove really is a waste of oxygen isn't he? As far as I can make out, politicians can just say whatever they like at the moment, without any substance or truth to it. There doesn't appear to be any repercussions for just spouting any old shit, to justify implementing yet more draconian measures. Even the scientists are getting involved, throwing wildly inaccurate graphs at the public, to scare them into accepting yet more needless lockdowns. Its all a crock of shit. Is it too much to ask to have a government which presents factual data to the people they represent? What we are seeing now isn't even "spin". Its gone beyond manipulating data or cherry picking snippets which suit their agenda. Its moved on to just blatant lies now, which have absolutely no truth to them whatsoever. And they are using these fabrications to justify and implement measures which are destroying the lives of millions. And yet there appear to be no ramifications? Staffs Moorlands are about to go into tier 3 tomorrow, despite their numbers dramatically dropping over recent days/weeks. Its now 197 cases per 100,000. It was around 400 per 100,000 a couple of weeks ago. Yet we go straight out of lockdown and into tier 3. Its all a load of bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Dec 1, 2020 13:34:19 GMT
Labour were never going to vote against this because they agree with the government on the restrictions. They abstained in protest at the lack of funding for the poorest areas in support of their constituents. It wasn't the most critical decision in our lifetime and Labour knew exactly what they were doing in abstaining - which was allowing the vote to pass. The point of the opposition is to hold the government to account - not to vote against the government for the hell of it. However I agree there is the need for a party that represents the sizable minority in this issue. Roll on PR. Complete kop out by Starmer He should vote for it or against and put forward his own proposals You’d have thought they’d learned their lesson after Brexit but obviously not I had high hopes that Starmer would be the saviour of the Labour Party and could provide a decent alternative to the Tories ( something they never were with Corbyn). Time yet but his actions to date have been rather underwhelming Just drifting along aimlessly aren't they at the moment. To be fair, neither the government nor opposition can win really in a situation like this. For all BoJo's useless leadership, we aren't the only country currently struggling to deal with this in an effective manner. There isn't a simple solution. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Dec 1, 2020 13:42:28 GMT
Hancock, Gove and Jenrick seem to be having a competition on who can spout the most bollocks. Gove in particular is clearly an intelligent man so he must be fully aware he's talking crap yet they seem to be pushing this mass testing idea as some sort of saviour. If they are using it as a means to open up areas from lockdown then fair enough but more likely, some of their buddies are making a shit load of money from it and want the testing to roll on for as long as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 1, 2020 13:44:24 GMT
Hancock, Gove and Jenrick seem to be having a competition on who can spout the most bollocks. Gove in particular is clearly an intelligent man so he must be fully aware he's talking crap yet they seem to be pushing this mass testing idea as some sort of saviour. If they are using it as a means to open up areas from lockdown then fair enough but more likely, some of their buddies are making a shit load of money from it and want the testing to roll on for as long as possible. we had this one debated a few days ago on here, Paul Spencer put it up  |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Dec 1, 2020 13:47:38 GMT
Latest from Sweden
117 new deaths yesterday.
An Increase.
Sweden don't have enough nurses who can give the vaccine injections.
Sweden have predicted a twice as long vaccination period than the rest of Europe. Partly due to the promised delivery dates from the manufacturers.
(Press conference)
|
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Dec 1, 2020 14:12:52 GMT
Gove really is a waste of oxygen isn't he? She’s brilliant Awful pity there wasn’t more like her, show the absurdity of their pronouncements for what they are |
|
