onewheeldave

53 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

If some people had their way, a fair few.

 

Look at the mind boggling results from this survey:

 

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1413155464632836100?s=19

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.

51 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Don't think the first two have anything to do with covid - I'm sure that there are some miseryguts / nimbys etc that would love to see all clubs closed, licensing hours reduced and everybody in bed before midnight.

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.

58 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

The 'death with covid' statistic has many shortcomings. So do many (most?) other statistics which are collected in an attempt to understand, albeit imperfectly, what is going on in the World.

 

Take a moment to consider what statistic you would like to collect to measure the impact of covid. In all likelihood, what you come up with is likely to be less practical in terms of collection or less definite or less accurate than the 'death with covid' statistic. On the other hand, if you come up with something good, I would be glad to hear your idea.

 

How about 'Death BY covid'? Maybe not as easy in terms of collection but certainly more practical in terms of 'being true'

50 minutes ago, Longcol said:

" In 90% of certificates where covid-19 is recorded, it does so in part 1 as the cause contributing directly to death.6"

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n352

'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.

2 hours ago, Palomar said:

Our family's experience of Covid is in line with how msm and government said it might be. You are fooling yourself. You are denying (greatly) the seriousness of Covid, so Covid denier seems reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

 

 

How long would you have preferred them to test the vaccines for given the numbers of deaths worldwide?

 

 

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.

6 minutes ago, Longcol said:

It's not like a couple of people have been working in a lab on this.

 

No other vaccine has had as many resources - money, time of leading scientists, supercomputers etc thrown at it - and shared so they can see and correct any flaws virtually in real time.

 

Trials involving hundreds of thousands of people took place over months.

 

Should we have waited a couple of years and seen a couple of million more deaths in the UK? 

 

Vaccine has slowed down rate of hospitalisations and deaths in comparison to infections.

 

I know which I prefer for the country.

 

 

 

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].

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

How long do experts say we need for side effects of vaccines to become apparent?

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93064

 

"While experience so far with COVID vaccines shows that some are associated with very rare, early side effects, experts say they have confidence about the long-term safety of these vaccines.

That's because past experience shows that severe side effects from vaccines most often appear within a time frame of about 6 weeks after vaccination, according to Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC)."

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.

11 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

I would presume all vaccines are developed by experiment and other scientific methods, to prove their efficacy, why would this be any different and therefore why would need to describe it as such?

 

You surely don't believe that these are novel vaccines, developed from scratch in a matter of months? Rather than the developments of existing, which were and are under constant research and development long before this came along? 

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.

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

So don't you think people should make more of an effort to stop the spread of a virus more deadly than a cold or flu?

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.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Nope - pretty clear if you've a cold - what if you've  got covid but are asymptomatic?

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. 

18 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So if you've got a cold you won't use a handkerchief or tissue if you cough or sneeze in public?

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

4 minutes ago, Longcol said:

 

So you're happy to see people potentially passing on diseases?

Nope- I said nothing of the kind

1 hour ago, hackey lad said:

But it gives assurance to other people , so if it dosent hurt you and helps others , why not ?

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.

10 hours ago, trastrick said:

 

 

People do not value free stuff, that is not earned. They just vandalize and abuse it.

6 minutes ago, trastrick said:

 

 

As for valuing free food, there is no such thing as "free food". Someone has to produce it, deliver it, and make it available.

 

 

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.

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Ah, Food Banks.

 

Does anybody really know, or care, how much their government is extorting from the average productive worker?

 

Say you make £100 a week.

 

Straight away when you are paid the Government takes 22% off you in Income Tax. If you’re a higher rate tax payer that rises to 40%. Of your £100, £78 is left. Then there are your bills – you might put aside £3 for Council Tax, £2 for Road Tax and say £3 for the VAT on our utilities bills, which are charged at 5%........

 

.....Now let’s say you fancy going out for the evening. You put £16 worth of petrol in the car and drive to a restaurant where you spend £15 on a meal. On the way you stop off and buy a packet of cigarettes at £7. After your meal, you go to the cinema and pay £8 for tickets for the latest blockbuster. Later on you fancy a drink at your local and you spend £9.

 

First is the petrol. According to the AA, a staggering 85% of the cost of petrol is tax which goes straight into the Government purse. The meal and the cinema will have been taxed at 20% VAT, so your evening’s enjoyment has boosted the Government coffers by £4.60. Your £9 round of drinks has automatically added in 35% or £3.15 to your growing tax bill.

 

Finally to add insult to injury, that £7 packet of cigarettes you just purchased is actually worth a miserly 77p – the tax you pay is an astonishing 88.9%. No real surprise the Government doesn’t really want smokers to quit given they’re such a cash cow for them.

Bottom line, if you are a standard rate tax payer, £64.88 of your £100 has been paid to the government in tax.

 

But it doesn’t end there.

 

The rest of your money will be spent on goods and services, a car, furniture etc, with a 20% VAT. License fees , TV, Drivers Licenses, Passport fees, Airline Travel Taxes, Stamp duty, Business tax, National insurance contributions, Airport tax, maybe Capital gains, Inheritance tax, Savings taxes, etc.

 

That gets you down to about £20

 

So you workers hold your head high. You're doing all the work, and your bureaucracy is taking 80% of your hard earned wages. But that's still not enough for the ever growing government. Then they are running up debt to be paid by future generations still unborn.

 

Then they want you to donate to food banks.

 

 

 

 

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-

5 hours ago, trastrick said:

 

 

People do not value free stuff, that is not earned. They just vandalize and abuse it.

my question in response-

5 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

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

was a counter-example, as the vast majority of people who go to food banks for free food, value that free food highly.

8 minutes ago, trastrick said:

 

Truth is the socialist "free lunch" dependency on government strikes at the very heart of community values, civic pride, and self esteem.

 

And no amount of tinkering will ever solve it.

 

People do not value free stuff, that is not earned. They just vandalize and abuse it.

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. 

1 hour ago, HeHasRisen said:

Went for my 2nd jab last week at a GP practice. Nurses there seemed a bit downbeat - it was very quiet, 19 people had not attended after booking it. 

 

Had my first AZ jab in that brief period where is was fine for someone in their 30s to have it, seems people have been crying off going back in for their 2nd, really dont see the logic, you are more likely to get run over and killed outside the GP surgery than get a blood clot from it for crying out loud, just have it and get the course finished.

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

12 hours ago, top4718 said:

This is one of the least racist countries in the world, opportunities for anyone who's prepared to put a bit of effort in,

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

6 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not as anti-social as potentially infecting someone with covid.

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.

2 hours ago, Zinger549 said:

Was out in Central London last night and most people seemed to be wearing a mask on the tube.  There is lots of information about the pros of face coverings. Have read some independent websites as well as Sky, BBC ect.  Full Fact is a good site to read.

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.

13 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

You seem to be encouraging antisocial behaviour despite your assertion you were just pointing out the rules are not being enforced.

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

4 minutes ago, bassett one said:

our national food is fish/chips,so we cannot eat them,even though we ate them as a main diet through 2 ww,

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

3 hours ago, makapaka said:

or he’s in complete denial.

 

Unfortunately there are millions if not billions of people who do have the risk factors that make them prone to  bad outcomes.

 

which is why it’s a problem. 

 

Given that the current total world population is only 7.9 billion, it's certainly not the case that billions have the risk factors

3 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

 

 

Daily cases are doubling twice (quadrupling) roughly every 3 weeks (eg see Our World in Data website, set the y-scale to log to help estimate doubling times)......... If hospitalization or death rates are going to be so high as to make this plan untenable the sooner this is realised the better.

Cases being the operative word [not hospitalisations or deaths]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

40 million+ people have cared enough to protect you.

You should thank them.

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

2 hours ago, top4718 said:

The CDC has all death rates under 69 years old to be less than 4% and that doesn’t take into account pre-existing conditions, I’ll take my chances with that, I’m probably more at risk driving to work.

What about mental health, missed cancer screenings, care home residents isolated from family, young children having no social interaction, delayed operations and so on and so on, people who give the impression of caring are certainly very selfish.

Excellent response. 

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Your accusation that there are 40 million+ "...people who give the impression of caring are certainly very selfish..." confounds rational thought.

 

 

 

 

 

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!!!

3 hours ago, sibon said:

Most of the people I spoke to whilst I was queuing up had problems that could have been dealt with in local services if they existed. I needed stitches, the NGH was the only place capable. It’s a barmy situation, but the A and E problem isn’t caused by Covid. It could easily be overwhelmed by it though.

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.

3 hours ago, butlers said:

Independent Sage have put out their projections with a full on Freedom Day ,it's as you would expect.

 

 

Oh gosh, and they've always been so accurate in the past haven't they...

2 hours ago, top4718 said:

Death and serious illness has never been a major factor for people who have no pre-existing conditions and under 75 years old. With many vaxxed the threat has to have lessened further, why are SAGE now ignoring there own criteria.

2 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

You are using your own alternative facts again.

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]].

1 minute ago, sibon said:

Funnily enough , I spent a couple of days in A and E at the NGH last week. I’m fine now, BTW.

 

Everyone was wearing face coverings, that’s everyone. Everyone was social distancing in the queue and waiting room.

 

There was a massive wait to get in. And a longer one to get seen. Add on Covid admissions to that and we will have a real problem.

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'?