Any updates?

135 posts
User avatar
LUX
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 8777
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:38
Location: rock star porn star superstar doesn't matter what you are get yourself a good car get outta here.

Re: Any updates?

by LUX » 09 Nov 2020 09:34

ah, but the UK has Brexit to look forward too, andrew. Sorted.

andrew1957
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3714
Joined: 29 Sep 2006 14:40
Location: Reading

Re: Any updates?

by andrew1957 » 09 Nov 2020 09:42

Snowflake Royal
andrew1957
Jagermesiter1871
Whats insane about it? Most of Europe is in the same position.


40,000 disease experts and scientists have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown and so when you are told the Government is following the science this is untrue. They are just following one scientific view and many thousands of scientists disagree with that view.

Far more will die In the years ahead from the economic effects of the global lockdowns and from other untreated health conditions than from coronavirus.

And the truth is that all the lockdowns will achieve at best is to give mainly very old people a few more years as the average age of death from Covid so far in the UK has been between somewhere between 82.4 and 85.5.

Didn't have you down as a Trumpite Brexiteer


For the record I have never voted for Trump as I live in the UK. Frankly think all of Clinton, Trump and Biden were awful choices. I would have gone for Tulsi Gabbard myself as she was a sensible grounded option with good policies but clearly US voters did not want a sensible option as she only got about 2% support.

As for Brexit I did vote for that for economic reasons but these have been overwhelmed by Covid and a double whammy of Covid and a hard Brexit is a concern right now.

User avatar
Jagermesiter1871
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2364
Joined: 25 Jul 2010 01:59

Re: Any updates?

by Jagermesiter1871 » 09 Nov 2020 11:51

andrew1957
Jagermesiter1871
andrew1957 Charter boat fishing has been stopped until at least the 2nd December. Tough on the professional boat skippers who also had to stop for 2 months earlier in the year and who received no financial help.

Just more victims of this insane lockdown.


Whats insane about it? Most of Europe is in the same position.


40,000 disease experts and scientists have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown and so when you are told the Government is following the science this is untrue. They are just following one scientific view and many thousands of scientists disagree with that view.

Far more will die In the years ahead from the economic effects of the global lockdowns and from other untreated health conditions than from coronavirus.

And the truth is that all the lockdowns will achieve at best is to give mainly very old people a few more years as the average age of death from Covid so far in the UK has been between somewhere between 82.4 and 85.5.


Wow what a oxf*rd moron.

1 - if you get a lockdown right not only does it stop covid transmission (thus reduce covid deaths), stop consequential deaths from the health service reaching capacity; it also saves the economy. Saving lives/reducing covid transmission isn't diametrically opposed to saving the economy, in fact they are very much related. See countries who have managed this correctly.

2- Deaths aren't the only important parameter here. As Snowflake has said, long covid is a very real issue and something that can affect much younger patients. We still don't have understand this virus to know the long lasting ramifications, so to brazenly say 'llol all we're doing is giving old people a few extra years' is not only disgusting in its own right, is also well wide of the mark.

3- Additionally letting the virus run rampant through the population in itself is extremely risky. With each infection you risk the virus mutating potentially into something deadlier and transmission is not only reserved to the human population. Herd immunity is a complete fallacy at this point as we have zero evidence of long lasting immunity.

At this stage our best bet is to reduce transmission as much as we can through lockdowns, social distancing, masks and any other suppression techniques. We're a mere couple of weeks from a vaccine candidate reaching market, which is the next stage. If this works, then that furthers the suppression.

Love that you bring up the Great Barrington Declaration. Is that the statement from the economic think tank financed by such reputable companies as Phillip Morris tobacco and Exxon Mobile, companies who have never acted against the best interests of man kind. I wonder why they may have a vested interest in keeping people in the office? Not to mention the Trump Administration being its biggest supporters.

andrew1957
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3714
Joined: 29 Sep 2006 14:40
Location: Reading

Re: Any updates?

by andrew1957 » 09 Nov 2020 12:32

Jagermesiter1871
andrew1957
Jagermesiter1871
Whats insane about it? Most of Europe is in the same position.


40,000 disease experts and scientists have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown and so when you are told the Government is following the science this is untrue. They are just following one scientific view and many thousands of scientists disagree with that view.

Far more will die In the years ahead from the economic effects of the global lockdowns and from other untreated health conditions than from coronavirus.

And the truth is that all the lockdowns will achieve at best is to give mainly very old people a few more years as the average age of death from Covid so far in the UK has been between somewhere between 82.4 and 85.5.


Wow what a oxf*rd moron.

1 - if you get a lockdown right not only does it stop covid transmission (thus reduce covid deaths), stop consequential deaths from the health service reaching capacity; it also saves the economy. Saving lives/reducing covid transmission isn't diametrically opposed to saving the economy, in fact they are very much related. See countries who have managed this correctly.

2- Deaths aren't the only important parameter here. As Snowflake has said, long covid is a very real issue and something that can affect much younger patients. We still don't have understand this virus to know the long lasting ramifications, so to brazenly say 'llol all we're doing is giving old people a few extra years' is not only disgusting in its own right, is also well wide of the mark.

3- Additionally letting the virus run rampant through the population in itself is extremely risky. With each infection you risk the virus mutating potentially into something deadlier and transmission is not only reserved to the human population. Herd immunity is a complete fallacy at this point as we have zero evidence of long lasting immunity.

At this stage our best bet is to reduce transmission as much as we can through lockdowns, social distancing, masks and any other suppression techniques. We're a mere couple of weeks from a vaccine candidate reaching market, which is the next stage. If this works, then that furthers the suppression.

Love that you bring up the Great Barrington Declaration. Is that the statement from the economic think tank financed by such reputable companies as Phillip Morris tobacco and Exxon Mobile, companies who have never acted against the best interests of man kind. I wonder why they may have a vested interest in keeping people in the office? Not to mention the Trump Administration being its biggest supporters.


I will gladly debate in a civil manner but clearly you feel the need to be abusive to those who disagree with you, which is a shame. I have to say my views are typical of nearly all my family, friends and colleagues and so are widely held.

The point is there are risks whatever we do and we need to balance those risks. There is the old phycological test where participants are faced with a full tram where the brakes have failed hurtling down the track and will hit a brick wall and everyone will die if it is not diverted onto a side-track where a mother and her children are crossing. You have to choose whether to sacrifice all the people in the tram or sacrifice the mother and children for the greater good of the much larger number on the tram. By the sound of it you would sacrifice the people on the tram. The point of that test is that there is no good answer and no perfect outcome. The same is true of Covid in that there are no good options but I do find it sad that in our society increasingly we seemingly have to subscribe to a politically correct viewpoint where those who subscribe to that view simply say "we are right and you are wrong" and we will back this up by being abusive to you.

Anyway enough said - I should know by now polite and sensible debate on here is impossible.

User avatar
Jagermesiter1871
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2364
Joined: 25 Jul 2010 01:59

Re: Any updates?

by Jagermesiter1871 » 09 Nov 2020 13:02

andrew1957
Jagermesiter1871
andrew1957
40,000 disease experts and scientists have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown and so when you are told the Government is following the science this is untrue. They are just following one scientific view and many thousands of scientists disagree with that view.

Far more will die In the years ahead from the economic effects of the global lockdowns and from other untreated health conditions than from coronavirus.

And the truth is that all the lockdowns will achieve at best is to give mainly very old people a few more years as the average age of death from Covid so far in the UK has been between somewhere between 82.4 and 85.5.


Wow what a oxf*rd moron.

1 - if you get a lockdown right not only does it stop covid transmission (thus reduce covid deaths), stop consequential deaths from the health service reaching capacity; it also saves the economy. Saving lives/reducing covid transmission isn't diametrically opposed to saving the economy, in fact they are very much related. See countries who have managed this correctly.

2- Deaths aren't the only important parameter here. As Snowflake has said, long covid is a very real issue and something that can affect much younger patients. We still don't have understand this virus to know the long lasting ramifications, so to brazenly say 'llol all we're doing is giving old people a few extra years' is not only disgusting in its own right, is also well wide of the mark.

3- Additionally letting the virus run rampant through the population in itself is extremely risky. With each infection you risk the virus mutating potentially into something deadlier and transmission is not only reserved to the human population. Herd immunity is a complete fallacy at this point as we have zero evidence of long lasting immunity.

At this stage our best bet is to reduce transmission as much as we can through lockdowns, social distancing, masks and any other suppression techniques. We're a mere couple of weeks from a vaccine candidate reaching market, which is the next stage. If this works, then that furthers the suppression.

Love that you bring up the Great Barrington Declaration. Is that the statement from the economic think tank financed by such reputable companies as Phillip Morris tobacco and Exxon Mobile, companies who have never acted against the best interests of man kind. I wonder why they may have a vested interest in keeping people in the office? Not to mention the Trump Administration being its biggest supporters.


I will gladly debate in a civil manner but clearly you feel the need to be abusive to those who disagree with you, which is a shame. I have to say my views are typical of nearly all my family, friends and colleagues and so are widely held.

The point is there are risks whatever we do and we need to balance those risks. There is the old phycological test where participants are faced with a full tram where the brakes have failed hurtling down the track and will hit a brick wall and everyone will die if it is not diverted onto a side-track where a mother and her children are crossing. You have to choose whether to sacrifice all the people in the tram or sacrifice the mother and children for the greater good of the much larger number on the tram. By the sound of it you would sacrifice the people on the tram. The point of that test is that there is no good answer and no perfect outcome. The same is true of Covid in that there are no good options but I do find it sad that in our society increasingly we seemingly have to subscribe to a politically correct viewpoint where those who subscribe to that view simply say "we are right and you are wrong" and we will back this up by being abusive to you.

Anyway enough said - I should know by now polite and sensible debate on here is impossible.


The problem is you've just completely ignored the points I've made. There are good options that reduce risks - lockdowns that stop the spread and suppress the virus is exactly that. Doing nothing kills people and will tank the economy - the two are very much related. The problem with anti-lockdowners is in your mind the country just continues to function as if it was pre-covid. This isn't a reality.

To use your odd anecdote - doing nothing would be blowing the tram up and shooting the family.


andrew1957
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3714
Joined: 29 Sep 2006 14:40
Location: Reading

Re: Any updates?

by andrew1957 » 09 Nov 2020 13:56

Jagermesiter1871
andrew1957
Jagermesiter1871
Wow what a oxf*rd moron.

1 - if you get a lockdown right not only does it stop covid transmission (thus reduce covid deaths), stop consequential deaths from the health service reaching capacity; it also saves the economy. Saving lives/reducing covid transmission isn't diametrically opposed to saving the economy, in fact they are very much related. See countries who have managed this correctly.

2- Deaths aren't the only important parameter here. As Snowflake has said, long covid is a very real issue and something that can affect much younger patients. We still don't have understand this virus to know the long lasting ramifications, so to brazenly say 'llol all we're doing is giving old people a few extra years' is not only disgusting in its own right, is also well wide of the mark.

3- Additionally letting the virus run rampant through the population in itself is extremely risky. With each infection you risk the virus mutating potentially into something deadlier and transmission is not only reserved to the human population. Herd immunity is a complete fallacy at this point as we have zero evidence of long lasting immunity.

At this stage our best bet is to reduce transmission as much as we can through lockdowns, social distancing, masks and any other suppression techniques. We're a mere couple of weeks from a vaccine candidate reaching market, which is the next stage. If this works, then that furthers the suppression.

Love that you bring up the Great Barrington Declaration. Is that the statement from the economic think tank financed by such reputable companies as Phillip Morris tobacco and Exxon Mobile, companies who have never acted against the best interests of man kind. I wonder why they may have a vested interest in keeping people in the office? Not to mention the Trump Administration being its biggest supporters.


I will gladly debate in a civil manner but clearly you feel the need to be abusive to those who disagree with you, which is a shame. I have to say my views are typical of nearly all my family, friends and colleagues and so are widely held.

The point is there are risks whatever we do and we need to balance those risks. There is the old phycological test where participants are faced with a full tram where the brakes have failed hurtling down the track and will hit a brick wall and everyone will die if it is not diverted onto a side-track where a mother and her children are crossing. You have to choose whether to sacrifice all the people in the tram or sacrifice the mother and children for the greater good of the much larger number on the tram. By the sound of it you would sacrifice the people on the tram. The point of that test is that there is no good answer and no perfect outcome. The same is true of Covid in that there are no good options but I do find it sad that in our society increasingly we seemingly have to subscribe to a politically correct viewpoint where those who subscribe to that view simply say "we are right and you are wrong" and we will back this up by being abusive to you.

Anyway enough said - I should know by now polite and sensible debate on here is impossible.


The problem is you've just completely ignored the points I've made. There are good options that reduce risks - lockdowns that stop the spread and long suppress the virus is that. Doing nothing kills people and will tank the economy - the two are very much related. The problem with anti-lockdowners is in your mind the country just continues to function as if it was pre-covid. This isn't a reality.

To use your odd anecdote - doing nothing would be blowing the tram up and shooting the family.


I was going to leave it there but as you persist. Re your points.

1/ You ignored my earlier point in this thread that lock down is not the most effective way of reducing transmission. The best way is effective track and trace, isolating those infected and the most vulnerable being supported if they choose to self isolate to reduce their risk. I have not said we should not use common sense, keep distance and in some circumstances wear masks. If you have to have lock downs then local ones make most sense and it seems like these were beginning to work before the Government panicked yet again into an unnecessary England wide one.

Hospitals in the south and south west are mainly quiet as they are not overwhelmed with Covid cases and most other people are steering clear. Contacts in the NHS tell me they are twiddling their thumbs. One nursing assistant in Cornwall publicly resigned last week as she could no longer subscribe to the propaganda that were being told about how busy the NHS was when her experience was that hospitals in the south west were largely empty. Just google "Cornish nurse resigns over covid".

2/ Whether or not long Covid is an issue is just another risk that we all have to take into account. If you are one of the unlucky 1 in 50 or more likely 1 in 500 who is ill for more than 12 weeks that is unfortunate for the people affected but not grounds for shutting down a great deal of the economy.

3/ Typically viruses mutate and become less deadly over time. As far as I am aware the Spanish Flu is the only example of a major epidemic where the second wave was more deadly than the first wave. As for herd immunity this has always worked in the past. This is how Spanish Flu was beaten in around 24 months and it also still seems to be UK Government policy as by keeping schools and colleges open (amongst the most likely major spreaders of the disease) all we are doing is slowing the disease down as we are not completely breaking the transmission as with the first lock-down earlier this year. This will mean taking this route that yet another lock down will almost certainly be needed in February or March to beat off the third wave.

And as for those who think that a vaccine is going to come along and save us all. It normally takes 5 years at least to bring to market a successful vaccine. The big pharma companies are now rushing one through at break neck speed but as I understand it have demanded and been given full immunity from any blame for either immediate or future side effects of such a vaccine. Vaccines are also largely ineffective for the over 70's - who are the most at risk group. Bearing in mind the relatively low risk to anyone aged below 70 the risk of the vaccine could be far greater than the risk of the Covid. I suspect that big pharma are more interested in their profit margins than anything else. Covid is a potential huge cash cow for them as if they get their way we will all have to have both a flu and covid jab every year.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 18013
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Any updates?

by Snowflake Royal » 09 Nov 2020 14:06

Take it off the Team Board please chaps.

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10629
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Undiscovered pyramid somewhere in Egypt

Re: Any updates?

by Sutekh » 09 Nov 2020 14:17

andrew1957
Jagermesiter1871
andrew1957
I will gladly debate in a civil manner but clearly you feel the need to be abusive to those who disagree with you, which is a shame. I have to say my views are typical of nearly all my family, friends and colleagues and so are widely held.

The point is there are risks whatever we do and we need to balance those risks. There is the old phycological test where participants are faced with a full tram where the brakes have failed hurtling down the track and will hit a brick wall and everyone will die if it is not diverted onto a side-track where a mother and her children are crossing. You have to choose whether to sacrifice all the people in the tram or sacrifice the mother and children for the greater good of the much larger number on the tram. By the sound of it you would sacrifice the people on the tram. The point of that test is that there is no good answer and no perfect outcome. The same is true of Covid in that there are no good options but I do find it sad that in our society increasingly we seemingly have to subscribe to a politically correct viewpoint where those who subscribe to that view simply say "we are right and you are wrong" and we will back this up by being abusive to you.

Anyway enough said - I should know by now polite and sensible debate on here is impossible.


The problem is you've just completely ignored the points I've made. There are good options that reduce risks - lockdowns that stop the spread and long suppress the virus is that. Doing nothing kills people and will tank the economy - the two are very much related. The problem with anti-lockdowners is in your mind the country just continues to function as if it was pre-covid. This isn't a reality.

To use your odd anecdote - doing nothing would be blowing the tram up and shooting the family.


I was going to leave it there but as you persist. Re your points.

1/ You ignored my earlier point in this thread that lock down is not the most effective way of reducing transmission. The best way is effective track and trace, isolating those infected and the most vulnerable being supported if they choose to self isolate to reduce their risk. I have not said we should not use common sense, keep distance and in some circumstances wear masks. If you have to have lock downs then local ones make most sense and it seems like these were beginning to work before the Government panicked yet again into an unnecessary England wide one.

Hospitals in the south and south west are mainly quiet as they are not overwhelmed with Covid cases and most other people are steering clear. Contacts in the NHS tell me they are twiddling their thumbs. One nursing assistant in Cornwall publicly resigned last week as she could no longer subscribe to the propaganda that were being told about how busy the NHS was when her experience was that hospitals in the south west were largely empty. Just google "Cornish nurse resigns over covid".

2/ Whether or not long Covid is an issue is just another risk that we all have to take into account. If you are one of the unlucky 1 in 50 or more likely 1 in 500 who is ill for more than 12 weeks that is unfortunate for the people affected but not grounds for shutting down a great deal of the economy.

3/ Typically viruses mutate and become less deadly over time. As far as I am aware the Spanish Flu is the only example of a major epidemic where the second wave was more deadly than the first wave. As for herd immunity this has always worked in the past. This is how Spanish Flu was beaten in around 24 months and it also still seems to be UK Government policy as by keeping schools and colleges open (amongst the most likely major spreaders of the disease) all we are doing is slowing the disease down as we are not completely breaking the transmission as with the first lock-down earlier this year. This will mean taking this route that yet another lock down will almost certainly be needed in February or March to beat off the third wave.

And as for those who think that a vaccine is going to come along and save us all. It normally takes 5 years at least to bring to market a successful vaccine. The big pharma companies are now rushing one through at break neck speed but as I understand it have demanded and been given full immunity from any blame for either immediate or future side effects of such a vaccine. Vaccines are also largely ineffective for the over 70's - who are the most at risk group. Bearing in mind the relatively low risk to anyone aged below 70 the risk of the vaccine could be far greater than the risk of the Covid. I suspect that big pharma are more interested in their profit margins than anything else. Covid is a potential huge cash cow for them as if they get their way we will all have to have both a flu and covid jab every year.


If vaccines are rushed through at break neck speed then I don’t see how they can have been sufficiently tested and the results studied. I presume that full range of possible side effects from receiving ANY NEW DRUG won’t necessarily become clear to the medical profession or pharma for a year or two, maybe even longer, after the drug is given to someone. Out of interest what is the average time for a drug to be tested before going live to the public?

User avatar
LUX
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 8777
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:38
Location: rock star porn star superstar doesn't matter what you are get yourself a good car get outta here.

Re: Any updates?

by LUX » 09 Nov 2020 14:42

Snowflake Royal Take it off the Team Board please chaps.


fair point


andrew1957
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3714
Joined: 29 Sep 2006 14:40
Location: Reading

Re: Any updates?

by andrew1957 » 09 Nov 2020 14:50

Sutekh If vaccines are rushed through at break neck speed then I don’t see how they can have been sufficiently tested and the results studied. I presume that full range of possible side effects from receiving ANY NEW DRUG won’t necessarily become clear to the medical profession or pharma for a year or two, maybe even longer, after the drug is given to someone. Out of interest what is the average time for a drug to be tested before going live to the public?


For drugs it is typically an average of 10-12 years and up to 10-14 years for a successful vaccine which is what scares me about any Covid one. It would be unprecedented to bring a successful vaccine to mass market in less than an absolute minimum of 5 years. I would be terrified of taking anything that untested myself.

andrew1957
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3714
Joined: 29 Sep 2006 14:40
Location: Reading

Re: Any updates?

by andrew1957 » 09 Nov 2020 14:51

LUX
Snowflake Royal Take it off the Team Board please chaps.


fair point


Fair enough - no more from me about this. The points have been aired both ways. I just get a tad put out being called an oxford moron for daring to express a contrary view.

User avatar
Jagermesiter1871
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2364
Joined: 25 Jul 2010 01:59

Re: Any updates?

by Jagermesiter1871 » 09 Nov 2020 17:27

andrew1957
Sutekh If vaccines are rushed through at break neck speed then I don’t see how they can have been sufficiently tested and the results studied. I presume that full range of possible side effects from receiving ANY NEW DRUG won’t necessarily become clear to the medical profession or pharma for a year or two, maybe even longer, after the drug is given to someone. Out of interest what is the average time for a drug to be tested before going live to the public?


For drugs it is typically an average of 10-12 years and up to 10-14 years for a successful vaccine which is what scares me about any Covid one. It would be unprecedented to bring a successful vaccine to mass market in less than an absolute minimum of 5 years. I would be terrified of taking anything that untested myself.


Isn't the main reason they've been able to develop it so quickly is that they are using a derivative of a vaccine being developed for MERS which is a very closely related coronavirus? This coupled with record levels of investment, huge innovations in basic genetics, immunology, and structural biology. Finally the fact its an acute illness as opposed to chronic, meaning the body is itself able to deploy an immune response in most of us, makes it far easier to create a vaccine and all means its not THAT surprising we have a vaccine. Although obviously it is a huge feat.

Genuinely, what do you think is worst case scenario of what could happen from taking the vaccine?

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 16676
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Any updates?

by leon » 10 Nov 2020 15:53

Jagermesiter1871
andrew1957
Sutekh If vaccines are rushed through at break neck speed then I don’t see how they can have been sufficiently tested and the results studied. I presume that full range of possible side effects from receiving ANY NEW DRUG won’t necessarily become clear to the medical profession or pharma for a year or two, maybe even longer, after the drug is given to someone. Out of interest what is the average time for a drug to be tested before going live to the public?


For drugs it is typically an average of 10-12 years and up to 10-14 years for a successful vaccine which is what scares me about any Covid one. It would be unprecedented to bring a successful vaccine to mass market in less than an absolute minimum of 5 years. I would be terrified of taking anything that untested myself.


Isn't the main reason they've been able to develop it so quickly is that they are using a derivative of a vaccine being developed for MERS which is a very closely related coronavirus? This coupled with record levels of investment, huge innovations in basic genetics, immunology, and structural biology. Finally the fact its an acute illness as opposed to chronic, meaning the body is itself able to deploy an immune response in most of us, makes it far easier to create a vaccine and all means its not THAT surprising we have a vaccine. Although obviously it is a huge feat.

Genuinely, what do you think is worst case scenario of what could happen from taking the vaccine?


Your nob could drop off.


muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1803
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: Any updates?

by muirinho » 10 Nov 2020 22:48

leon
Jagermesiter1871
Genuinely, what do you think is worst case scenario of what could happen from taking the vaccine?


Your nob could drop off.


I'll be grand so. Good stuff.

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 3831
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Polishng the County Ground floodlights

Re: Any updates?

by Lower West » 11 Nov 2020 00:05

andrew1957 1/ You ignored my earlier point in this thread that lock down is not the most effective way of reducing transmission. The best way is effective track and trace, isolating those infected and the most vulnerable being supported if they choose to self isolate to reduce their risk.


The failure with that policy is people themselves. Rather like your post on here. Many of us are fed with those that go on and on . When the answer is down to common sense. Something unfortunately a great many are lacking.

Millsy
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5995
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Shite little island soon to be sick man of Europe again and claim our rightful place as USA's bitch.

Re: Any updates?

by Millsy » 11 Nov 2020 08:02

Lol @ the "40,000 scientists" bullshit.

Reminds me of when I almost became a manmade climate change denier when a 'knowledgable' friend of mine tried to convince me citing the alleged "30,000 climate scientists" petition. Actually being a scientist I researched it, read the paper, the facts etc and it turns out the original paper was fake and the "30,000 scientists" were largely members of public or students who might have had some sort of vaguely science degree in something who were just duped by the official looking paper. And iirc it was backed by... ExxonMobil. All other 'evidence' turned out to be bullshit. Only took me 1 week of research. Which is 7 days more than most people do when reading these bullshit headlines that confirm what they want to believe.

I went from almost being a climate change denier (btw I wanted to believe it because conspiracy theories are cool) to accepting the disappointing and boring scientific consensus that it is happening.

I admittedly haven't researched this "40,000 scientists" but why does it not surprise me what someone says above by it being linked to ExxonMobil somehow.

People who understand and work in science know that it works by consensus and so there will always be outliers. And there will always be people to sign petitions started by (in this case 3) scientists.

What covid has taught us is that many people are largely incredibly stupid, anti-science and easily swayed Dunning-Kruger 'experts' and to me that is almost more dangerous than covid itself.

But yeah. Not for the team board sorry.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5339
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Any updates?

by SCIAG » 11 Nov 2020 09:05

Misunderstandings of the national debt, trolleyology, and epidemiology are one thing, but citing the Spanish Flu as an example we should be seeking to follow is possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen on the Team Board, including when 2ww1wc pretended to think it was caused by 5G.

Millsy
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5995
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Shite little island soon to be sick man of Europe again and claim our rightful place as USA's bitch.

Re: Any updates?

by Millsy » 11 Nov 2020 11:08

SCIAG including when 2ww1wc pretended to think it was caused by 5G.


I wasn't pretending. It is! Think about it....

5G starts to get rolled out --> Covid happens.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

:wink:

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 18013
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Any updates?

by Snowflake Royal » 11 Nov 2020 12:50

Millsy Lol @ the "40,000 scientists" bullshit.

Reminds me of when I almost became a manmade climate change denier when a 'knowledgable' friend of mine tried to convince me citing the alleged "30,000 climate scientists" petition. Actually being a scientist I researched it, read the paper, the facts etc and it turns out the original paper was fake and the "30,000 scientists" were largely members of public or students who might have had some sort of vaguely science degree in something who were just duped by the official looking paper. And iirc it was backed by... ExxonMobil. All other 'evidence' turned out to be bullshit. Only took me 1 week of research. Which is 7 days more than most people do when reading these bullshit headlines that confirm what they want to believe.

I went from almost being a climate change denier (btw I wanted to believe it because conspiracy theories are cool) to accepting the disappointing and boring scientific consensus that it is happening.

I admittedly haven't researched this "40,000 scientists" but why does it not surprise me what someone says above by it being linked to ExxonMobil somehow.

People who understand and work in science know that it works by consensus and so there will always be outliers. And there will always be people to sign petitions started by (in this case 3) scientists.

What covid has taught us is that many people are largely incredibly stupid, anti-science and easily swayed Dunning-Kruger 'experts' and to me that is almost more dangerous than covid itself.

But yeah. Not for the team board sorry.

For me it falls down at the claim 30,000 scientists support it.

If find the idea that there are 30,000 expert virologists and epidemic experts in the UK rather hard to swallow.

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10629
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Undiscovered pyramid somewhere in Egypt

Re: Any updates?

by Sutekh » 11 Nov 2020 13:18

Snowflake Royal
Millsy Lol @ the "40,000 scientists" bullshit.

Reminds me of when I almost became a manmade climate change denier when a 'knowledgable' friend of mine tried to convince me citing the alleged "30,000 climate scientists" petition. Actually being a scientist I researched it, read the paper, the facts etc and it turns out the original paper was fake and the "30,000 scientists" were largely members of public or students who might have had some sort of vaguely science degree in something who were just duped by the official looking paper. And iirc it was backed by... ExxonMobil. All other 'evidence' turned out to be bullshit. Only took me 1 week of research. Which is 7 days more than most people do when reading these bullshit headlines that confirm what they want to believe.

I went from almost being a climate change denier (btw I wanted to believe it because conspiracy theories are cool) to accepting the disappointing and boring scientific consensus that it is happening.

I admittedly haven't researched this "40,000 scientists" but why does it not surprise me what someone says above by it being linked to ExxonMobil somehow.

People who understand and work in science know that it works by consensus and so there will always be outliers. And there will always be people to sign petitions started by (in this case 3) scientists.

What covid has taught us is that many people are largely incredibly stupid, anti-science and easily swayed Dunning-Kruger 'experts' and to me that is almost more dangerous than covid itself.

But yeah. Not for the team board sorry.

For me it falls down at the claim 30,000 scientists support it.

If find the idea that there are 30,000 expert virologists and epidemic experts in the UK rather hard to swallow.


40,000 Worldwide.

135 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 125 guests

It is currently 20 Jan 2021 23:39