pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464 
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 2:29:57 GMT
They haven't kept it quiet for two years, it's just you haven't been paying enough attention or chose not to listen. Mandated and coerced vaccines, covid passports, transfer of wealth, censorship, police overreach etc etc. Not just politicians, but big tech's collusion with pharma companies and their censorship and crackdown on experts and people with a differing opinion. Very dystopian. Politicians have kept quiet. How many politicians in the UK have broken ranks and said that it's all a big conspiracy? Or in Europe? I meant they haven't kept the plans quiet and been set out in the open. We certainly don't have any opposition in this country with a poodle opposition who are tory lapdogs following a very similar agenda, only they want things done even more draconian. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 2:31:43 GMT
The same professor who argues that mammograms for woman are not justified? I think I'll pass, cheers. You don't think it's dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate people to take its product, prohibit people from suing for harm and refuse to let the public see the data underlying its licensure? Okay then. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 2:38:42 GMT
Indeed.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 2:48:38 GMT
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 2:54:24 GMT
Ordinary folk are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Dec 23, 2021 6:38:08 GMT
The same professor who argues that mammograms for woman are not justified? I think I'll pass, cheers. You don't think it's dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate people to take its product, prohibit people from suing for harm and refuse to let the public see the data underlying its licensure? Okay then. I think you are mixing too many things up at once, using unreliable sources and coming to the wrong conclusions. Is big pharma corrupt? Yes, absolutely. Are the 1% controlling things to suit themselves. Yeah, probably. Are world governments making use of the pandemic to make a grab for more control over its citizens? Yeah, in some countries I don't doubt that's plausible. Are we already living in a dystopian nightmare? CCTV, shopping monitored via loyalty cards, personal data shared between corperations, police overreach and mass dumbing down via (social) media. Yeah, I can see dystopia everywhere. People should have bodily autonomy and you are still perfectly free to opt out so I see no tyranny. Here is where we also differ. Twitter is not a reliable source of information. Crackpot Professors who don't think women should be given mammograms are not scientists and should be ignored, not quoted. Vaccines work. Many diseases have been iradicated because of them. World governments, health professionals and scientists are in agreement. (see my earlier point regarding crackpot twitter scientists) Some of the twitter spam you posted cited that scientists are politically mandated to sway results and manipulate models. No they are not. They are asked to provide data and modeling that reflects certain scenarios. A best case, a worse case, data based on current trends etc. This is perfectly normal data analysis. It would be negligent not to model worse case situations. We have a free (albeit bias) press in this country. I can go out right now and buy the Guardian, the Torygraph or heaven forbid the Daily Mail. In the next election I can go out an vote for anyone I choose. f**ks sake, I could even run as an independent myself. We live in a free democracy. In order to live in this freedom, we do concede, but not lose, some rights. That's how society works. I have the freedom to kill a man. Society, government, the police etc would "coerce" me, punish me and brainwash me to think it's wrong, but I still have that freedom should I choose. Part of living with others is understanding that we do things for the betterment of the group, not just act in our own interests. Being told to wear a face mask in public is neither an inconvenience nor a violation of my rights. No more than making me wear clothes in public. It's about protecting me and more importantly, it's about protecting other people from me. (The mask, not the clothes) (although....) |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Dec 23, 2021 7:23:54 GMT
You don't think it's dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate people to take its product, prohibit people from suing for harm and refuse to let the public see the data underlying its licensure? Okay then. I think you are mixing too many things up at once, using unreliable sources and coming to the wrong conclusions. Is big pharma corrupt? Yes, absolutely. Are the 1% controlling things to suit themselves. Yeah, probably. Are world governments making use of the pandemic to make a grab for more control over its citizens? Yeah, in some countries I don't doubt that's plausible. Are we already living in a dystopian nightmare? CCTV, shopping monitored via loyalty cards, personal data shared between corperations, police overreach and mass dumbing down via (social) media. Yeah, I can see dystopia everywhere. People should have bodily autonomy and you are still perfectly free to opt out so I see no tyranny. Here is where we also differ. Twitter is not a reliable source of information. Crackpot Professors who don't think women should be given mammograms are not scientists and should be ignored, not quoted. Vaccines work. Many diseases have been iradicated because of them. World governments, health professionals and scientists are in agreement. (see my earlier point regarding crackpot twitter scientists) Some of the twitter spam you posted cited that scientists are politically mandated to sway results and manipulate models. No they are not. They are asked to provide data and modeling that reflects certain scenarios. A best case, a worse case, data based on current trends etc. This is perfectly normal data analysis. It would be negligent not to model worse case situations. We have a free (albeit bias) press in this country. I can go out right now and buy the Guardian, the Torygraph or heaven forbid the Daily Mail. In the next election I can go out an vote for anyone I choose. f**ks sake, I could even run as an independent myself. We live in a free democracy. In order to live in this freedom, we do concede, but not lose, some rights. That's how society works. I have the freedom to kill a man. Society, government, the police etc would "coerce" me, punish me and brainwash me to think it's wrong, but I still have that freedom should I choose. Part of living with others is understanding that we do things for the betterment of the group, not just act in our own interests. Being told to wear a face mask in public is neither an inconvenience nor a violation of my rights. No more than making me wear clothes in public. It's about protecting me and more importantly, it's about protecting other people from me. (The mask, not the clothes) (although....) FWIW what you’re talking about there is actually evolutionary. Why do we view some things as bad vs others are ok? Evolutionary speaking, it makes sense for humans to negatively on actions that upset our social society. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 7:42:20 GMT
Hugo, there are plenty of highly qualified scientists and doctors that disagree decisions taken throughout the pandemic, unfortunately many have been silenced by 'fact checkers' with clear conflicts of interest. As for SAGE, the psychologists on the committee admitted they have deliberately been trying to frighten the public and the Chairman of Sage modellers presumes someone else in govt is modelling the economic and social harm of lockdowns. But no one is (and that’s not his fault btw). How can ministers decide how to “balance the harms” if they’re only given one side of the story? There is also plenty of research on facemasks to show they have little or no benefit and in some cases do more harm than good. Bojo certainly doesn't seem bothered about wearing a mask after being pictured on public transport not wearing one recently.
 A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Health found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”
A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12%, not enough to prevent infections.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Dec 23, 2021 9:37:44 GMT
Hugo, there are plenty of highly qualified scientists and doctors that disagree decisions taken throughout the pandemic, unfortunately many have been silenced by 'fact checkers' with clear conflicts of interest. As for SAGE, the psychologists on the committee admitted they have deliberately been trying to frighten the public and the Chairman of Sage modellers presumes someone else in govt is modelling the economic and social harm of lockdowns. But no one is (and that’s not his fault btw). How can ministers decide how to “balance the harms” if they’re only given one side of the story? There is also plenty of research on facemasks to show they have little or no benefit and in some cases do more harm than good. Bojo certainly doesn't seem bothered about wearing a mask after being pictured on public transport not wearing one recently.
A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Health found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”
A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12%, not enough to prevent infections.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.
aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100 Did you read that? It actually says masks work. Also, Boris is a bufoon so him not wearing a mask is hardly a surprise. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 9:57:31 GMT
Hugo, there are plenty of highly qualified scientists and doctors that disagree decisions taken throughout the pandemic, unfortunately many have been silenced by 'fact checkers' with clear conflicts of interest. As for SAGE, the psychologists on the committee admitted they have deliberately been trying to frighten the public and the Chairman of Sage modellers presumes someone else in govt is modelling the economic and social harm of lockdowns. But no one is (and that’s not his fault btw). How can ministers decide how to “balance the harms” if they’re only given one side of the story? There is also plenty of research on facemasks to show they have little or no benefit and in some cases do more harm than good. Bojo certainly doesn't seem bothered about wearing a mask after being pictured on public transport not wearing one recently.
A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Health found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.”
A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Institute of Physics found that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12%, not enough to prevent infections.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.
aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100 Did you read that? It actually says masks work. Also, Boris is a bufoon so him not wearing a mask is hardly a surprise. That particular study showed that cloth face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 10% and surgical masks 12%, but not enough to prevent infections. It says The R95 masks reduced indoor aerosols by 60% and KN95 by 46%. “I’ve spoken to a Professor who’s done a review for WHO on wearing of face masks and we’re of the same mind. In terms of hard evidence and what the UK Government recommends, we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public” - Jonathan Van Tam, the deputy chief medical officer. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2021 10:18:54 GMT
aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100 Did you read that? It actually says masks work. Also, Boris is a bufoon so him not wearing a mask is hardly a surprise. That particular study showed that cloth face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 10% and surgical masks 12%, but not enough to prevent infections. It says The R95 masks reduced indoor aerosols by 60% and KN95 by 46%. “I’ve spoken to a Professor who’s done a review for WHO on wearing of face masks and we’re of the same mind. In terms of hard evidence and what the UK Government recommends, we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public” - Jonathan Van Tam, the deputy chief medical officer. Things change, more recently he's said this: "Professor Van Tam further told BBC Breakfast that mask wearing is useful but they "are probably most useful when used in combination with other things." England’s deputy chief medical officer said that, outdoors, ventilation is the most important factor, but masks should be worn if others feel uncomfortable or if authorities ask a person to do so. He added: "If you then went into an indoor setting, which involves food and drink, then it becomes very difficult because you don’t wear them at the table." “You can’t take them on and off in between sips of a drink. And so really what you should do, in my view, is to wear masks when mobile, and use them as you’re entering and exiting the premises.” " In isolation it may be 'just' useful but all these little things add up to help prevent spread. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 10:25:48 GMT
That particular study showed that cloth face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 10% and surgical masks 12%, but not enough to prevent infections. It says The R95 masks reduced indoor aerosols by 60% and KN95 by 46%. “I’ve spoken to a Professor who’s done a review for WHO on wearing of face masks and we’re of the same mind. In terms of hard evidence and what the UK Government recommends, we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public” - Jonathan Van Tam, the deputy chief medical officer. Things change, more recently he's said this: "Professor Van Tam further told BBC Breakfast that mask wearing is useful but they "are probably most useful when used in combination with other things." England’s deputy chief medical officer said that, outdoors, ventilation is the most important factor, but masks should be worn if others feel uncomfortable or if authorities ask a person to do so. He added: "If you then went into an indoor setting, which involves food and drink, then it becomes very difficult because you don’t wear them at the table." “You can’t take them on and off in between sips of a drink. And so really what you should do, in my view, is to wear masks when mobile, and use them as you’re entering and exiting the premises.” " In isolation it may be 'just' useful but all these little things add up to help prevent spread. It's clear from the vast majority of studies I've read that the masks most people wear are virtually useless at preventing the spread. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2021 10:52:35 GMT
Things change, more recently he's said this: "Professor Van Tam further told BBC Breakfast that mask wearing is useful but they "are probably most useful when used in combination with other things." England’s deputy chief medical officer said that, outdoors, ventilation is the most important factor, but masks should be worn if others feel uncomfortable or if authorities ask a person to do so. He added: "If you then went into an indoor setting, which involves food and drink, then it becomes very difficult because you don’t wear them at the table." “You can’t take them on and off in between sips of a drink. And so really what you should do, in my view, is to wear masks when mobile, and use them as you’re entering and exiting the premises.” " In isolation it may be 'just' useful but all these little things add up to help prevent spread. It's clear from the vast majority of studies I've read that the masks most people wear are virtually useless at preventing the spread. Perhaps most that you've read but not all. www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-what-does-the-science-actually-say-about-face-masks-12349337As I said, it's probably one of several risk reduction things we can do. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2021 11:13:20 GMT
Iain Dale responding to Maajid.
"In 11 years on @lbc I have never publicly called out a fellow presenter. But I can't stand by while this sort of irresponsible and dangerous propaganda is spread by someone who ought to know better. Shame on you, Maajid. Shame. On. You. Boosters Save Lives. Scientific Fact"
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 11:36:13 GMT
Iain Dale responding to Maajid. "In 11 years on @lbc I have never publicly called out a fellow presenter. But I can't stand by while this sort of irresponsible and dangerous propaganda is spread by someone who ought to know better. Shame on you, Maajid. Shame. On. You. Boosters Save Lives. Scientific Fact" All the vaccinated people are testing positive, so we should ban the unvaccinated people from public life!!! 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2021 11:42:36 GMT
Iain Dale responding to Maajid. "In 11 years on @lbc I have never publicly called out a fellow presenter. But I can't stand by while this sort of irresponsible and dangerous propaganda is spread by someone who ought to know better. Shame on you, Maajid. Shame. On. You. Boosters Save Lives. Scientific Fact" All the vaccinated people are testing positive, so we should ban the unvaccinated people from public life!!! 😆 Leaving aside the genuine issues here, at the start of all this you said anyone in the vulnerable category should isolate so that the rest can carry on as normal. Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 😇 |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 11:47:50 GMT
All the vaccinated people are testing positive, so we should ban the unvaccinated people from public life!!! 😆 Leaving aside the genuine issues here, at the start of all this you said anyone in the vulnerable category should isolate so that the rest can carry on as normal. Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 😇 Vast majority unlikely to be vulnerable though.  |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Dec 23, 2021 11:50:44 GMT
Iain Dale responding to Maajid. "In 11 years on @lbc I have never publicly called out a fellow presenter. But I can't stand by while this sort of irresponsible and dangerous propaganda is spread by someone who ought to know better. Shame on you, Maajid. Shame. On. You. Boosters Save Lives. Scientific Fact" All the vaccinated people are testing positive, so we should ban the unvaccinated people from public life!!! 😆 Think you ought to volunteer to work on a Covid ward for a few weeks. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,464
|
Post by pirate on Dec 23, 2021 11:59:00 GMT
Covid fanatics and zealots.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2021 11:59:12 GMT
Leaving aside the genuine issues here, at the start of all this you said anyone in the vulnerable category should isolate so that the rest can carry on as normal. Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 😇 Vast majority unlikely to be vulnerable though. Not just the vulnerable though, is it. They have carers, family, deliveries, etc. Add in long covid and undiagnosed health conditions, plus increased absenteeism both in general and amongst key workers. On which note, you've refused any of the vaccines as 'we don't know the long term health affects'. Same for long covid. We are all in this together and as they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. |
|
