onewheeldave

I've been saying from the start how the lockdowns/measures could damage civil liberties to the point of facilitating global totalitarianism- that survey does not bode well. This is the problem- however well meaning the lockdowns and measures were, they've also had the very undesirable side effects of making public ultra complience the norm, building up a network of informers phoning up the authorities about neighbours committing the 'crime' of going outdoors [very characteristic of totalitarian regimes] and leading to a general public who not only accept and comply with anything they are told to do, however bizarre and irrational, but who will demand more and more of it. The authorities have finally found a bogey man more effective than terrorism to keep the populace in the kind of fear than leads to ultra complience. Doesn't matter though- it's being used in connection with covid, because the public are now so deluded and in fear of covid, that anything that can be twisted/spun into being about infection control, will get no resistance from most of the public, with a sizable chink of them actually demanding it be brought into law.

How about 'Death BY covid'? Maybe not as easy in terms of collection but certainly more practical in terms of 'being true' 'Contributing'- again, not 'causing' as it implies the presence of other contributing factors which could just as validly be labeled the cause of death, yet it's attributed to covid.

It's not reasonable. A 'covid denier' is someone who denies that covid exists. A person who believes covid exists, but that it's seriousness has been grossly exaggerated by media hysteria etc, is not a covid denier.

I think you misunderstand my intent. I was simply pointing out that the absence of long term testing is novel for vaccines. Your responses suggest that you think I'm critical of the vaccine being used without long term testing. I don't care what they do [as long as the vaccine isn't made compulsory, I would care about that]- if they want to use it without long term testing and people are happy to have it, I'm OK with that.

I was responding to bargepoles statement that this vaccine wasn't 'novel'. It is, because unlike previous vaccines it was put out with no long term testing. However much money was thrown at it, however much [non long term] testing it has undergone, however many arguments can justify using it without long term testing, the fact remains, it has had no long term testing, which, in the recent vaccine world, is novel [new].

So by the same....er......reasoning.... there's no need for any long term testing of future vaccines? 'most often' doesn't particularly inspire confidence either.

It's novel in the sense that, unlike earlier vaccines, it has been put into use with zero long term testing.

Personally I will be glad to see the back of compulsory masking. It will be interesting to see what portion of the public continue to mask when it is voluntary. I've long suspected that a significant percentage of the public have not been masking due to a belief that it helps, but purely because they're scared of the legal and social pressure consequences of not wearing a mask, in combination with the usual reluctance to do anything which the majority aren't.

More of an effort than they have been doing? More of an effort than lockdowns which have destroyed many small businesses and thrown their owners onto universal credit, devastated a generations education etc, etc. No.

Colds and flu can be spread without coughing- if you absolutely want to protect others from your cold/flu, you'd need to strap your hanky to your face at all times.

Using a hanky when sneezing and coughing is very different from strapping it permanently to your face

Nope- I said nothing of the kind

some other people. Others, me included, find the sight of people wearing masks to be far from reassuring, as it is a reminder of the degree of compliance to authority that infests the modern public. So, it gives assurance to some people, but to others, we're reassured by people not wearing a mask.

You've being highly inconsistent, first saying that people do not value free stuff, then, when I give an example of people valuing free stuff, you convert to claiming there is no such thing as free stuff. Which is it- do people not value free stuff, or, is there no such thing as free stuff? Because, if there is no such things as free stuff then the people you are claiming don't value it, are actually getting it.

If you make £100/week you definately won't be 'a higher rate tax payer' will you You'll also be on a low income and eligible for various benefits. Tax on cigarettes can be avoided by not smoking. But, my point was about your earlier claim- my question in response- was a counter-example, as the vast majority of people who go to food banks for free food, value that free food highly.

So when families go to food banks, they don't actually eat the food, they vandalize it?

Some people who had the first vaccine did so having believed the rhetoric that mass vaccinations would mean an end to restrictions. Now it is obvious that that isn't true, and that all it takes is another variation to initiate further measures/lockdowns, I guess they've lost interest in having a 2nd vaccination.

It is unlikely that their motivation for not having the 2nd is blood clots, otherwise they'd not have had the first one.

Is it more racist for those who don't put a bit of effort in?

Personally I would say that compulsory masking is as anti social as potentially being used as a transmission aid by a virus. Compulsory masking in the context of a virus like covid carries sufficient risk in terms of serious impact on civil liberty to outweigh the relatively minor [zero if outdoors] increase in transmission risk. Well, if 'most people' are doing it, it must be good then You're lucky you weren't in Germany in the late 1930's if you're swayed by what 'most people' are doing. There is lots of information about the alleged pros of masking, sadly not so much about the cons of compulsory masking, though a fair bit of censorship and mislabeling towards anyone who attempts to talk about it. You think Sky and the BBC and independant websites?! Wow.

Personally, I'd say that compulsory masking is anti-social.

What makes you think that fish/chips was our main diet through 2 world wars?

Given that the current total world population is only 7.9 billion, it's certainly not the case that billions have the risk factors Cases being the operative word [not hospitalisations or deaths] A ludicrous stance- the majority acted out of self interest due to the fact that they believed [rightly or wrongly] they would fall victim to a deadly pandemic Excellent response. No it doesn't- they cared about one cherry picked negative [covid infections] and dismissed all the others- the consequences of, and purely of, the lockdowns and measures- ie the mental health issues, the destroyed small businesses, the damage to civil liberties, the children with terminal cancer who died unable to be visited by family, the massive numbers of untreated patients, some with cancer, which are likely to overwhelm the NHS, care home deaths etc, etc, etc. And then these selfish people who acted primarily out of self interest and fear, have the temerity to accuse those of us who did care about all the above, of being selfish!!!

As you say, local services don't exist, so that's not relevant to the point made, which is that lockdowns [not covid] have creasted a huge waiting list of people who couldn't get treatment [during the lockdowns]; thus the lockdowns are clearly a causal factor when/if the health services become overwhelmed. Oh gosh, and they've always been so accurate in the past haven't they... No, he's right, for for people who have no pre-existing conditions and under 75 years old, serious health consequences from covid infection are unlikely [not impossible, some have succumbed [although they may have had undetected underlying conditions, but, the majority have experienced minor, or no, symptoms]].

A lot of people have been unable to access medical treatment during lockdowns [including many cancer sufferers]. As predicted this has led to huge queues- these will continue for some time. Is it not a bit dubious to say 'add on covid admissions' [to the queues caused by the lockdowns] 'and we will have a real problem'?