onewheeldave

22 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

They certainly were prevalent 20 years ago and before 

No. As with most bureaucracy there has been a sharp increase in demand for risk assessments with each passing decade.

2 hours ago, fools said:

Adjacent postcodes will often have significantly different infection/death rates. Same NHS trust, same laws. Wales/Scotland are different countries, devolved administrations with different laws, different bureaucracies, different weather.

 

You can't just compare some figures, and come to a conclusion that masks have or have not made a difference. It could be down to fried mars bars or their musical tastes. Their figures could be worse without masks, you have no data to compare.

 

Comparing far away countries and coming to a conclusion about mask efficacy is just ludicrous.

 

In the absence of data either way, you have to use logic and precaution --- People spit when they talk/cough/sneeze, two surgical masks will help to contain and limit your exposure to that spittle. It's that simple.

 

 

You've missed Chekhovs actual point, which is that it cuts  both ways i.e. those who consider comparing neighbouring regions to be not valid, should also cease citing how lands neighbouring Sweden have had lower death rates as being critical of Swedens relative lack of lockdowns and other measures.

55 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

....I am quite clear in my views and have been from March 2020, I think the response to Covid has been the biggest over reaction in the history of the world. And any (genuine) students of history would agree with me.

 

The covid over-reaction brings to mind this-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

as a similar kind of mass delusion.

Historically of course, the phenomenom of 'mass hysteria' is well documented

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases

one obvious example being the witch hunts of earlier centuries.

I believe that the covid over-reaction is perhaps the first example of a global mass hysteria. Probably enabled/facilitated by the relatively new incidence of global communication made possible by recent technology; if that is the case we should expect more cases of global mass hysteria.

7 hours ago, Martin C said:

It's a joke.  I obviously accept that  some people are genuinely medically exempt (I am myself having been diagnosed as having COPD on top of mild asthma BUT I still wear a mask on buses/trains/trams/ in shops) because it's really not so very difficult to so so for 10-20 minutes.

But all the irresponsible braindead will continue to spin the "causes anxiety"/'"I'm exempt " 🤣 bowlocks. FU.

Do you think all medically exempt people should wear a mask on transport and in shops?

7 hours ago, Anna B said:

Laid back Australia seems to have gone a bit mad with restrictions. They have camps for covid victims and people with positive test results (and for perpetrators of covid misdemeanours.) plus swinging fines, and armed police on the street making sure the rules are obeyed to the letter. 

Yes here is a video with a first hand account of one of the internment camps. Note that these camps are not just for people with positive test results, but people who have been in contact with a person who has tested positive. The lady in the video tested negative through her entire 14 day internment, as did several of the other inmates.

7 hours ago, RJRB said:

There doesn’t seem to be any impending move towards this in the U.K.,but there have been so many U turns by the government so who knows.

So for the time being we can spectate as it is played out in Austria,Germany and wherever.I just don’t see how enforcement is possible and see it as a strategy to up the vaccine coverage in the interim period.

Enforcement is easy [see the above video]- the state sends police to the homes of refusers and places them into some sort of confinement until they agree to the vaccine.

56 minutes ago, melthebell said:

 

eh i posted a BBC link, obviously you cant read either

You really an an objectionable vindictive little person, aren't you? You just can't engage with someone who disagrees with you without resorting to cheap personal insults. You should consider growing up.

3 minutes ago, melthebell said:

i did post a link, in your stampede of quoting youve obviously missed it, look above, and to answer your point, we ALL were locked down, furloughed, had less money but dont go round punching shop workers just going round doing their jobs, stop making excuses

That wasn't a link, it was a quote from another poster.

I'm not making excuses- it is a fact that the measures have had a serious effect on many people's mental health- that wouldn't lead to ALL OF THEM losing control and being violent. 

I think it's also safe to say that some people have suffered a lot more than you?

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

its part of it, but violence has risen against shop staff since the pandemic for numerous reasons, normally selfish people and being told to socially distance, or wear a mask

In the absence of any links to back up the violence claim, it could be all of it, couldn't it?

And , if violence has risen against staff since the pandemic, that could be for many different reasons- the increase in stress and mental illness due to the lockdowns/compulsory masking/compulsory vaccines/losing jobs etc would be expected to lead to frayed tempers and increase in violence, for example.

Just now, melthebell said:

its been mentioned as a reason by the stores on MSM yes, the point is people like daddy are applauding them, but when you look closer as to why, its not because of the reason your applauding, they arent doing it because they believe masks dont work, or they dont like em, they are doing it because they cant enforce them, staff just doing their job are under additional threat of attack

So no links then.

Could it not be that they are not enforcing simply due to the fact that they consider it not the role of their staff to enforce masking? That they consider it the role of, say, the police? This has been stated by such stores on numerous occasions.

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

I work in hospitality, i know exactly how it works, we've had to deal with it as well, and maybe again soon

But, do you have a link to back up your claim that these stores are doing it purely because of customers inflicting violence and abuse on staff when asked to put a mask on?

[as opposed to a quote from another poster mentioning the BBC , again, with no link]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

yeah excellent news that the reason they are doing it that staff have to endure violence and abuse just for doing their job, great stuff

 

 

Do you have a link to back up your claim that these stores are doing it purely because of customers inflicting violence and abuse on staff when asked to put a mask on?

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

This is one of the things that really annoys me with all this Covid Cobblers, people who are not as negatively affected by all this ludicrous nonsense (and if it was arguably nonsense before vaccines it certainly is now) telling other people they should happily accept it all or they are "selfish". I tend to find middle class people, often working from home, or retired people on index linked pensions are the ones to be most in favour of this madness, and working people *, esp working class people who have worked pretty much normally right through this who, ironically, are the ones sick to death of this suppression lunacy.

No, these hypocrites should look in the mirror, it is they who are selfish telling other people to ruin their lives.

 

 

 

I agree fully. There are a lot of selfish people on this thread [pro-suppressionists, pro compulsary masking/compulsory vaccines] and it is bizarre that they constantly default to accusing those who disagree with them of being selfish.

1 minute ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Then as you admit many won't and that will be enough for the data in question to be rejected on the grounds of reliability.

 

I've admitted nothing of the kind!

Even supposing some of the data is uncontaminated, it is virtually impossible to decide which is, and which isn't.

2 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

The quality, repetition and accuracy of data is fundamental to any investigation.

Maybe it is. That doesn't mean there is any consistently accurate data available.

3 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Tens of thousands of individuals involved in hundreds of projects around the world cannot possibly all in the pay of the big Pharma or any sinister organization.

 

For God's sake- read my posts- stop strawmanning me, I'm not saying they're 'all in the pay of the big Pharma or any sinister organization'!!!

3 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

Even if errors are being made deliberately or through negligence for gain or incompetence, they are still being compared with others and would stand up like a sore thumb.

 

And if most of those others have the same problems?

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Of course, I understood that from the phrasing of your numbered points. I was trying to acknowledge what I feel to be the case in the subject areas you were highlighting. One difficulty in discussing this is that given the extent of polarisation, we each regard certain things as obvious that the other would not accept.

 

You think it is obvious that the covid restrictions caused certain harms eg to the economy. Harms have occurred but I think there is a problem with attribution. Had we tried to go without the restrictions would we actually have avoided those harms? [In my opinion,] had we managed to proceed with no restrictions, we would certainly have taken a far bigger hit from covid ... and something would have happened to the economy - I am not exactly sure what - in the resulting catastrophe.

 

How has the counting of deaths been affected? I am not talking about the assignment of cause of death just the number and timing of deaths ... the bits one needs to calculate excess mortality. The ONS has been doing this for many years and I had assumed it was fairly bulletproof. If you feel this is somehow tainted can you suggest some data source which you would regard as more reliable ... um, err on any aspect of the pandemic. For example, do you feel the ONS's GDP numbers have remained reliable, for example? The process of their collection seems complex and involves methods of estimation that might become vastly less reliable in a pandemic.

 

It is a perfectly honourable position to think that no data sources are reliable but the consequence is that one says 'I don't know' to every question. One doesn't get to know the negative consequences of restrictions or that covid deaths have been lower than reported.

 

So, ... do you have any sources of data you feel you can trust?

No, I'm not necessarily saying I've got better sources of data. If I question the mainstream narratives data due to the contamination from vested interests and systemic faults, I also question the data from the other side, for the same reasons.

But some data is highly usable, such as that concerning what percentages of non-vulnerable people are at risk from covid, and, on that, even the data from the mainstream narrative, which, IMO, is exaggerative, says it is very low: from that conclusions can be drawn.

But, on the whole, unlike most people, I just accept that the majority of the data is highly compromised and proceed from there. 

1 minute ago, butlers said:

The last survey I saw was the vast majority were happy to put up with masking in the appropriate situation.

 

Forgive me for not falling into despair over a survey

I'll wait to see what actually does happen.

It will be interesting to see what happens in terms of mask complience this time around. I'm getting the sense that a lot more people are going to refuse to comply.

I've also noticed in this thread, we're getting a bit more balance now, which is good. 

1 hour ago, Carbuncle said:

How about:

1.1 Health statistics should generally be treated as at minimum somewhat approximate.

1.2 Scientific research, especially single papers, should never be regarded as definitive and unchallengeable.

1.3 One should anticipate some level of corruption/ contamination everywhere. Levels vary hugely.

2.1 The covid measures have had a significant detrimental effect on the economy.

2.2 The covid measures have probably had a significant detrimental effect on domestic abuse and mental health.

2.3 MSM and government pronouncements on the pandemic warrant considerable scepticism due to ulterior motives.

2.4 Politicians frequently fall short in terms of integrity.

3.1 Covid does not match the black death as a threat to human health.

3.2 The mitigated epidemic, at this stage, appears to be less of a threat to human health than the Spanish flu epidemic.

 

Can you put your finger on what worries you about the excess mortality figures? I had thought this would pass muster as, as far I understand it, it relies simply on being able to count deaths as and when they occur.

Concerning the numbered points- I'd go a lot further on most of them e.g.

'1.2 Scientific research, especially single papers, should never be regarded as definitive and unchallengeable.'

of course, that's obvious. What's not anywhere near acknowledged is the extent of how badly many of them are damaged by the effects of the various vested interests, and, by the factors mentioned in the 'meta-science/meta research' link. To the extent that a lot of them are not fit for purpose.

'2.4 Politicians frequently fall short in terms of integrity.' Again, that's putting it very mildly. Just the way the system is set up pretty much ensures that any honest individuals with integrity can't succeed in politics; whereas expert manipulators with the right social connections and the ability to lie well, will tend to do very well.

As for the excess mortality figures, the posters below make relevant points as to why they may not be accurate

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

 

 

Excess mortality.

Now there's a minefield.

That will include people whose health has suffered as a result of this pandemic.

Sorry, as  a result of the governments crude suppression policies.

That's more accurate.

55 minutes ago, Axel said:

I was thinking about the suicide rates and attempted suicides over the past couple of years but was reminded that I know of someone who died of a drugs overdose , it was recorded as a covid death causing great distress to the family.  Also a friend who died of cancer last year was recorded as a covid death (caught in hospital), this skews the statistics somewhat.   I fear that in years to come the true death toll will be enormous.

I'm aware of lots of these too.

Carbuncle- "Forget the interpretation for a moment. Would you expect the ONS to have done a good job of preparing the statistic?"

I don't know- it's an organisation like any other and therefore could have the same issues.

But even if they had done a good job, if the results are innacurate [due to any of the above reasons] then they are of no use to me in coming to conclusions.

I'm not sure if you're understanding me on this? Don't you agree that the ONLY really important things is that a stat is [reasonably] accurate. If they're not [reasonably] accurate then whether the organisation involved is sincere/competent is of no real relevance, is it?

22 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

I am actually interested more in how one has a constructive conversation. When one reaches wildly different conclusions but wants to have a constructive conversation, I have often found it useful to try and work out where in the mess of disagreement there are things one can actually agree on ... basic facts one can work forward from. Are there any basic things you hold to be facts that you think I might agree are facts?

can you agree any of these-

1. stats and research are prone to corruption/contamination despite the fact that most of the people working on them are genuine and well-intentioned

2. the harms to mental health, economy etc of the covid measures are far greater than is known by most of the public and the pronouncements of the media and govt?

3. the threat from covid has been exaggerated [not necessarily intentionally] and it is not anything approaching the Spanish flu, or indeed the real pandemics that could well be appearing over the next few years.

Can you put forward some things you think I may agree with you on?

Note how I already agree with you that the people/organisations producing stats are genuine, nevertheless I am far more focused on whether the actual stats themselves are accurate/inaccurate? Though I guess that is progess in that it wasn't clear previously?

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

So what about the excess mortality numbers the ONS produces, is that genuine? We have different views on the usefulness of 'deaths with covid' statistics but maybe we might agree that the excess mortality figures are good numbers.

I don't know. It is a while since I looked at such stats- doesn't seem much point as they as they are, in general, prone to contamination/corruption for the reasons previously mentioned.

There is now such overwhelming reason to believe that the fearmongering over covid is vastly exaggerated, and, that the harm being caused by it and the 'measures', is greatly under exaggerated, that there doesn't seem much point on focusing on the vast array of contradictory 'stats' out there.

Maybe in a decades time, when the hysteria has cleared, some sense will be made out of them?

The key points are that I can see there are huge problems with them [the stats and the research], I agree with you that much of the corruption of them is not deliberate, and, I can see the causal mechanisms whereby the corruption comes from.

2 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

 

 

I feel that the statistics are broadly the product of a genuine attempt to count things. I thought you might agree. This is separate from the question of whether the right things are being counted. I understand that you hold the 'deaths with covid' as not the right kind of thing to be counting.

I actually believe that quite a lot [possibly most] of the innacurate stats and research out there [all of it, not just covid] is sincere and genuine.

Similarly, most of the harm and evil perpetuated by humans and their organisations, is similarly well intentioned and genuine.

That's kind of the problem, because very few other people out there seem capable or willing to face up to that.

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Yes, I understood that to be your position. But do you believe the 'deaths with covid' statistic results from a genuine attempt to count to 'deaths with covid'.

 

Do you feel the statistics produced by the ONS reflect a genuine attempt to count things?

If I did, what difference does it make? Inaccurate stats are made no less inacurate if they were produced by genuine [but mistaken] people.

It's the final outcome that matters most [accurate or inacurate stats].

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

No, I am not saying that. I am trying to establish a set of facts that we might both agree on. One frustration I have with pops and tops is that there is no thing I regard as a fact which they are not prepared to identify as the product of a corrupt government and MSM.

 

I feel that the statistics are broadly the product of a genuine attempt to count things. I thought you might agree. This is separate from the question of whether the right things are being counted. I understand that you hold the 'deaths with covid' as not the right kind of thing to be counting.

Yes, because to an overestimation of the deaths from covid.

56 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Most of the tens of thousands of scientists around the world that are working on Covid related matters are working with teams that involve their supervisors, technicians, statisticians, local, regional, national, international collaboration, open databases, open to peer reviews.

The assumption that all the Universities, Hospitals, Governments, commercial pharma, Research foundations, Private donators, Charities etc are all working together to pay tens of thousands of researchers around the world is pure Conspiracy Theory.

An assumtion that no-one on this thread has made.

Strawman.

59 minutes ago, RJRB said:

I don’t disagree with this but we all have to make our own judgements.

Personally I would not equate the scientific research laboratories with the pharmaceutical industry eager to cash in on cures.

 

There are many other corrupting influences in the research industry. 

For a brief introduction, look here-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience

1 hour ago, Carbuncle said:

I meant genuine in the sense of honest/ not manipulated so I would count deaths with covid as genuine assuming the deaths with covid is as claimed.

 

So under my definition of genuine would you say the statistics are genuine?

Very confusing!

You seem to be saying that you count deaths with covid as being deaths from covid?

Deaths with covid are not deaths from covid and so will lead to incorrect statistics, and, I would say that they are therefore manipulated [whether deliberately or, by mistake].

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Go on ... so do you believe the figures from national and international statistical offices (eg UK ONS) are genuine or manipulated? And what about the vast acreage of research publication ... genuine or manipulated?

Some of them aren't genuine [for example, deaths with covid being logged as deaths from covid].

But 'not genuine' does not necessarily equate to 'manipulated' as that carries the connotation of intention. Error/mistaken is just as likely.