FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Covid response bullshit
Covid response bullshit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So the reviews and enquiries are proceeding and I try hard to ignore the news / entertainment articles as it just saddens and angers me in equal measure. But this one caught my eye so I read it. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-68450368 Now it's not so much calling shit on so many of the measures which we all knew were a crock at the time, at the time I was a great believer in "stronger together" and tried to adhere to the rules even though it meant not being able to say goodbye to my dear old mum. But I do wonder what the worth is of the token gesture enquiries now. You can ask any person in the street and they can save a huge amount of time and effort. The thing they really need to address is the breakdown of trust in vaccines and pharma and information from the government. I see no thought or response going into this. We can't even arrive at a set of true and accurate and trusted data. The more time that passes the more holes are found and the more the division hardens. I hope we don't have another situation anytime soon that requires a collective response. " like another covid ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know?" Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states." Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion." What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too" Trump is an imbecile. He couldn’t have chosen ivermectin at random. Where did his suggestion come from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion." Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too Trump is an imbecile. He couldn’t have chosen ivermectin at random. Where did his suggestion come from?" Where did his bleach and light suggestions come from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too Trump is an imbecile. He couldn’t have chosen ivermectin at random. Where did his suggestion come from?" My guess is was mentioned to him just before he came out to speak. He probably has the memory of a goldfish. Same as UV light and bleach were probably mentioned to him that they can be used to sterilize surfaces. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK." Even the quoted Journal of infection: "Summary This analysis from an open-label platform, randomised controlled trial of ivermectin for COVID-19 in the community suggests clinically meaningful improvements in recovery time are unlikely, with no reduction in hospital admissions, little difference in symptoms and no difference in days unwell, or impact on work and studies, at one, three, six and 12 months." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will add that this research has received some criticism in these areas: The Hazzard ratio was pre determined. Ivermectin was only prescribed 5 days in to infection. Subjects were told to take the dose on an empty stomach. The conversion of Ivermectin to its relevant plasma is long established to be more effective when taken with food. Nb the first Doctors to prescribe ivermectin for covid did so because it is a powerful respiratory anti inflammatory medicine with little to no side effects. They were using good medical logic. They were doing their job well." Pre covid ivermectin was never used to treat respiratory ailments. It's also not used as an anti inflammatory. It is used to treat parasitic infections, such as worms. It's pharmacology and how it works is very well understood. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will add that this research has received some criticism in these areas: The Hazzard ratio was pre determined. Ivermectin was only prescribed 5 days in to infection. Subjects were told to take the dose on an empty stomach. The conversion of Ivermectin to its relevant plasma is long established to be more effective when taken with food. Nb the first Doctors to prescribe ivermectin for covid did so because it is a powerful respiratory anti inflammatory medicine with little to no side effects. They were using good medical logic. They were doing their job well. Pre covid ivermectin was never used to treat respiratory ailments. It's also not used as an anti inflammatory. It is used to treat parasitic infections, such as worms. It's pharmacology and how it works is very well understood. " This is copied from a pubmed article Ivermectin has a demonstrated anti-inflammatory effect in vivo and in vitro, that works by reducing the production of TNF-alpha, IL-1 and IL-6, and suppressing LPS-induced NF-kB translocation.4 In mice, the administration of 2?mg/kg of ivermectin suppresses mucus hypersecretion in the respiratory tract and decreases the recruitment of immune cells and the production of cytokines and IgE/IgG1 in bronchoalveolar lavage.5 This shows that ivermectin has an anti-inflammatory effect not only at a systemic level, but also on the lung tissue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will add that this research has received some criticism in these areas: The Hazzard ratio was pre determined. Ivermectin was only prescribed 5 days in to infection. Subjects were told to take the dose on an empty stomach. The conversion of Ivermectin to its relevant plasma is long established to be more effective when taken with food. Nb the first Doctors to prescribe ivermectin for covid did so because it is a powerful respiratory anti inflammatory medicine with little to no side effects. They were using good medical logic. They were doing their job well. Pre covid ivermectin was never used to treat respiratory ailments. It's also not used as an anti inflammatory. It is used to treat parasitic infections, such as worms. It's pharmacology and how it works is very well understood. This is copied from a pubmed article Ivermectin has a demonstrated anti-inflammatory effect in vivo and in vitro, that works by reducing the production of TNF-alpha, IL-1 and IL-6, and suppressing LPS-induced NF-kB translocation.4 In mice, the administration of 2?mg/kg of ivermectin suppresses mucus hypersecretion in the respiratory tract and decreases the recruitment of immune cells and the production of cytokines and IgE/IgG1 in bronchoalveolar lavage.5 This shows that ivermectin has an anti-inflammatory effect not only at a systemic level, but also on the lung tissue." And the reason it's not used is that there are already numerous tested and successful treatments | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too Trump is an imbecile. He couldn’t have chosen ivermectin at random. Where did his suggestion come from?" Seems strange you ask where his suggestion came from, when you previously said it was a lucky guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure whether the orange one was right about Ivermectin but he just said such a load of random shit, that maybe there was an occasional accuracy. If you roll 1,000 pairs of dice, some will be double 6s, but over 97% won't be. Injecting bleach is just one example of the ridiculously stupid suggestions he made. Why do people still support such a clearly stupid and nasty man?" In fairness I don't think he ever said injecting bleach, I think he said if there was some way of getting it inside us and ya know... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too" They were throw away comments at a press briefing from a non scientist. Anyone who now plays that back as some kind of well considered opinion of anybody is just mischief making. I mean I'm no trump fan but I also can't stand the selective memory of some who wish to throw rocks at history without context | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too They were throw away comments at a press briefing from a non scientist. Anyone who now plays that back as some kind of well considered opinion of anybody is just mischief making. I mean I'm no trump fan but I also can't stand the selective memory of some who wish to throw rocks at history without context " But his Ivermectin idea was a well considered proposal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK." Either Cochrane is the gold standard or its not... they slso found mask wearing was not particularly effective and people on here where amazingly fast to claim they knew better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too" He said it in a stupid way but both are actually used medical procedures... The use of UV light for treating TB won a nobel prize and there are also lung irrigation treatments where the wash them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will add that this research has received some criticism in these areas: The Hazzard ratio was pre determined. Ivermectin was only prescribed 5 days in to infection. Subjects were told to take the dose on an empty stomach. The conversion of Ivermectin to its relevant plasma is long established to be more effective when taken with food. Nb the first Doctors to prescribe ivermectin for covid did so because it is a powerful respiratory anti inflammatory medicine with little to no side effects. They were using good medical logic. They were doing their job well. Pre covid ivermectin was never used to treat respiratory ailments. It's also not used as an anti inflammatory. It is used to treat parasitic infections, such as worms. It's pharmacology and how it works is very well understood. " Maybe not so well understood by you? Its an antiviral and is proven to lower the viral load. Does that make it a treatment for covid-19, The evidence so far would suggest not but there isn't really a need for further testing now so I guess we will never know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. What about bleach injections and bright lights inside the body Why weren't they lucky guesses too They were throw away comments at a press briefing from a non scientist. Anyone who now plays that back as some kind of well considered opinion of anybody is just mischief making. I mean I'm no trump fan but I also can't stand the selective memory of some who wish to throw rocks at history without context But his Ivermectin idea was a well considered proposal" Looking into Ivermectin at the time had merit, In the absence of a vaccine or treatment. Its a very very safe drug to give to people and its out of patent so very cheap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the reason for the low number of COVID-19 cases in Africa? What if the impact of Ivermectin interventions for another disease was the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rates caused by COVID-19 in Africa?" You could be right but I think it's more to do with lack of testing and death record keeping. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK. Either Cochrane is the gold standard or its not... they slso found mask wearing was not particularly effective and people on here where amazingly fast to claim they knew better. " It's effective! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what the Cochrane review found.." My evidence is anecdotal but valid - patient facing, directly dealing with COVID patients, never got covid until not needing to wear masks. There is research that backs up masks, I've shared it in the past. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what the Cochrane review found.. My evidence is anecdotal but valid - patient facing, directly dealing with COVID patients, never got covid until not needing to wear masks. There is research that backs up masks, I've shared it in the past. " masks do work /providing they are of correct type with correct fit not dust masks worn all week to stop aerosols or even better hankys or bits of old tshirts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Stating Ivermectin has an inflammatory effect, which it may, is not proof that it treats Covid. It is a medicine so it will have some effect on what it is designed for. Anyone with Covid who took Ivermectin, then got better, will not count natural immune response, they will say Ivermectin is the cure. Take 100 people with Covid, feed them ice cream, the ones that recover will say ice cream cures Covid." Not totally correct. Think you will find its alcohol ( best dispensed in a bar / social gathering, like mass vaccination). Then KFC, wait 30 minutes then ice cream, glazed with vaccine and chocolate sauce. Worked for me, so must be right. PS The Lancet has refused to accept my findings !!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what the Cochrane review found.. My evidence is anecdotal but valid - patient facing, directly dealing with COVID patients, never got covid until not needing to wear masks. There is research that backs up masks, I've shared it in the past. " Funny how you share one Cochrane review but rely on your own anecdotal evidence over the Cochrane review on mask wearing.. In the review they specifically looked at the example setting you gave and they where unable to prove it was effective even when masks where being worn by professionals in public facing care setting.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what the Cochrane review found.. My evidence is anecdotal but valid - patient facing, directly dealing with COVID patients, never got covid until not needing to wear masks. There is research that backs up masks, I've shared it in the past. masks do work /providing they are of correct type with correct fit not dust masks worn all week to stop aerosols or even better hankys or bits of old tshirts " If your within droplet range then yes maybe some limited protection but even surgical masks are not good enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what the Cochrane review found.. My evidence is anecdotal but valid - patient facing, directly dealing with COVID patients, never got covid until not needing to wear masks. There is research that backs up masks, I've shared it in the past. Funny how you share one Cochrane review but rely on your own anecdotal evidence over the Cochrane review on mask wearing.. " Anecdotal evidence confirming anything positive about COVID-19 vaccinations and precautions are allowed... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. "" "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. " Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. " They also said in the early days when they didnt have enough masks available that "masks dont work" And ive done enough face fit tests throught work for fpp3 dust masks to understand how the fitment is a fine balance between working and not, let alone some shitty throw away trying to reduce aerosols | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. " Yes they have but not because they where trying to stop respiratory viruses.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? " Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the reason for the low number of COVID-19 cases in Africa? What if the impact of Ivermectin interventions for another disease was the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rates caused by COVID-19 in Africa?" There is no “what if”, mate. This is not a marvel comic 
There are many reasons, but ivermectin is NOT one of these. And I would be veeeery careful in claiming that Africa has a decrease in morbidity and mortality by Covid without mentioning that the median age is lower and that the climate makes the virus spread more difficult because people don’t often find themselves in closed humid spaces with little air circulation (like, dunno, a pub in London in February) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome." Scientific consensus? I see. So there's no evidence. But it's a self justifying evidence because people choose to make it so.. That's not open to abuse then. Hmmm tonight malcolm I think I'm going to Call black white and all my pals say it's so... So it must be a scientific fact and you all must believe me... Now where's my cheque. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure whether the orange one was right about Ivermectin but he just said such a load of random shit, that maybe there was an occasional accuracy. If you roll 1,000 pairs of dice, some will be double 6s, but over 97% won't be. Injecting bleach is just one example of the ridiculously stupid suggestions he made. Why do people still support such a clearly stupid and nasty man?" On the dice thing, I have a set of lucky dice, they throw 6's about 60% of the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? " Science isn't something you "believe" it's something you understand. Facts are facts whether you believe in them or not. Sure, there's junk science from hacks trying to sell something, which is why peer-reviewed studies exist. If another scientist can replicate the experiment and produce the same results, it's fair to say it's real. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You cannot follow the science without an autopsy." Just over 7 million dead, just over 1.2 million of those in USA. Fairly certain there's plenty of autopsy material to work with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You cannot follow the science without an autopsy. Just over 7 million dead, just over 1.2 million of those in USA. Fairly certain there's plenty of autopsy material to work with." You'd think so wouldn't you...but you're only "fairly certain"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know?" Didn't he also suggest injecting bleach? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You cannot follow the science without an autopsy." There’s been plenty of autopsies and their results have been published. Man, you’re following the antivaxxer decalogue. What’s next? Hydroxychloroquine? 5g? Spike protein? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome. Scientific consensus? I see. So there's no evidence. But it's a self justifying evidence because people choose to make it so.. That's not open to abuse then. Hmmm tonight malcolm I think I'm going to Call black white and all my pals say it's so... So it must be a scientific fact and you all must believe me... Now where's my cheque. " LOL
I’m afraid the only inaccurate interpretation is yours. I think you did not understand a single word of what I wrote and you clearly have a very strong bias. In other words, you choose to believe in something and you’re not going to change your mind despite tons of evidence that I could show you.
I won’t waste more time with you. After all, people like you always existed and are not going to change the medical practice: that will evolve with science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome. Scientific consensus? I see. So there's no evidence. But it's a self justifying evidence because people choose to make it so.. That's not open to abuse then. Hmmm tonight malcolm I think I'm going to Call black white and all my pals say it's so... So it must be a scientific fact and you all must believe me... Now where's my cheque. LOL
I’m afraid the only inaccurate interpretation is yours. I think you did not understand a single word of what I wrote and you clearly have a very strong bias. In other words, you choose to believe in something and you’re not going to change your mind despite tons of evidence that I could show you.
I won’t waste more time with you. After all, people like you always existed and are not going to change the medical practice: that will evolve with science. ""Unless you're a doctor or scientist...". That's inaccurate and if you were a healthcare professional you'd know that. Because healthcare professionals have to drive their practice using evidence, a HUGE part of all medical type degrees involves learning how to interpret research, discard those that lack validity, ethics, credibility, rigour. Those of an acceptable quality are then contrasted and compared with each other. I've made looking at research sound easy - it isn't. It takes years to become proficient (and certainly doesn't just require peer review). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome. Scientific consensus? I see. So there's no evidence. But it's a self justifying evidence because people choose to make it so.. That's not open to abuse then. Hmmm tonight malcolm I think I'm going to Call black white and all my pals say it's so... So it must be a scientific fact and you all must believe me... Now where's my cheque. LOL
I’m afraid the only inaccurate interpretation is yours. I think you did not understand a single word of what I wrote and you clearly have a very strong bias. In other words, you choose to believe in something and you’re not going to change your mind despite tons of evidence that I could show you.
I won’t waste more time with you. After all, people like you always existed and are not going to change the medical practice: that will evolve with science.
"Unless you're a doctor or scientist...". That's inaccurate and if you were a healthcare professional you'd know that. Because healthcare professionals have to drive their practice using evidence, a HUGE part of all medical type degrees involves learning how to interpret research, discard those that lack validity, ethics, credibility, rigour. Those of an acceptable quality are then contrasted and compared with each other.
I've made looking at research sound easy - it isn't. It takes years to become proficient (and certainly doesn't just require peer review)."Apart from not naming all the profession that allow you to read and understand a scientific paper for love of synthesis, I wrote the same thing as you: some people have the knowledge to critically review a paper, some do not. The ones who do not, please leave it to the experts. See? I made it simple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You cannot follow the science without an autopsy. There’s been plenty of autopsies and their results have been published. Man, you’re following the antivaxxer decalogue. What’s next? Hydroxychloroquine? 5g? Spike protein? "Is that what's next? As you know everything, and are always right, do you have any tips for the Gold Cup on Friday? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You cannot follow the science without an autopsy. There’s been plenty of autopsies and their results have been published. Man, you’re following the antivaxxer decalogue. What’s next? Hydroxychloroquine? 5g? Spike protein?
Is that what's next?
As you know everything, and are always right, do you have any tips for the Gold Cup on Friday?"Probably not a good idea to get tips from a guy that had to google what the gold cup is
For anything else, I will oblige. But remember: this is a swinger site. I’m here for sex, much less for bollocks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome. Scientific consensus? I see. So there's no evidence. But it's a self justifying evidence because people choose to make it so.. That's not open to abuse then. Hmmm tonight malcolm I think I'm going to Call black white and all my pals say it's so... So it must be a scientific fact and you all must believe me... Now where's my cheque. LOL
I’m afraid the only inaccurate interpretation is yours. I think you did not understand a single word of what I wrote and you clearly have a very strong bias. In other words, you choose to believe in something and you’re not going to change your mind despite tons of evidence that I could show you.
I won’t waste more time with you. After all, people like you always existed and are not going to change the medical practice: that will evolve with science. "I'm self aware enough to understand that we all have biases and prejudices. Beyond that I'm only holding up a mirror because pretty much every word that is used to patronise, take the piss out of, denounce and otherwise denigrate anyone who dares not to believe certain "facts", can be reflected straight back upon those doing the patronising. A good example being whatever people choose to take from the Cochrane report, where it seems it is used by those who think masks are effective and those who think they are not in equal measure. If you choose Not engage that's fine I didn't ask you to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you're in doubt. Is dead easy to find on t'internet. This is what it says... "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. " "Many commentors have claimed..." Here's the problem, even if a million people said it, medical fact isn't a democracy, you don't get to say a majority of people's anecdotal statement is true just because a lot of people agree with you. You could hold a referendum on 2+2 being 5 and if 99% said it was, it won't actually make it so. Simple fact is, there's stupid people, disinformation and conspiracy theories everywhere. Medical staff wearing masks didn't start in 2020, they've been doing it for over a century. Very true. But then how do you choose which bit of a "science" research paper you believe or don't believe. And if you choose not to believe "the papers" because it doesn't align with your biases, how can we be critical of others who chose to believe or not believe other "papers"? Very simple: you judge the papers by yourself. However, to do this you need to have the competences to do it: evidence based medicine requires knowledge of statistics, epidemiology, pathology, diagnostics and many many more. In other words: unless you’re a doctor or a scientist it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to distinguish between a valid study and pure tosh. That’s why people usually listen to doctors and scientists. Also, there’s something called “scientific consensus”, which is reached when there’s enough evidence on a topic that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on something. Example: there is overwhelming evidence (thanks to many different studies on the same topic, that confirm the same findings) that ivermectin DOES NOT work against covid. You’re welcome. Scientific consensus? I see. So there's no evidence. But it's a self justifying evidence because people choose to make it so.. That's not open to abuse then. Hmmm tonight malcolm I think I'm going to Call black white and all my pals say it's so... So it must be a scientific fact and you all must believe me... Now where's my cheque. LOL
I’m afraid the only inaccurate interpretation is yours. I think you did not understand a single word of what I wrote and you clearly have a very strong bias. In other words, you choose to believe in something and you’re not going to change your mind despite tons of evidence that I could show you.
I won’t waste more time with you. After all, people like you always existed and are not going to change the medical practice: that will evolve with science.
I'm self aware enough to understand that we all have biases and prejudices. Beyond that I'm only holding up a mirror because pretty much every word that is used to patronise, take the piss out of, denounce and otherwise denigrate anyone who dares not to believe certain "facts", can be reflected straight back upon those doing the patronising. A good example being whatever people choose to take from the Cochrane report, where it seems it is used by those who think masks are effective and those who think they are not in equal measure. If you choose Not engage that's fine I didn't ask you to. "Fine to me!
(By the way: if the right mask is used in the right context, they are effective in reducing the spread of airborne infectious diseases, including sars-covid 19) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't eat bats " I Actually think it didn't come from bats . It was man-made to knock population down . Just my opinion so don't shot the Messenger | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember a neighbor asking me at the start of the plandemic whether I was scared of the virus. I replied with a firm no, but told her I was scared about the damage to society, the economy, mental health, education, the destruction of businesses, fraud, excessive restrictions of freedom by power mad politicians and blanket lockdowns…a year later she came up to me and said it appears you were right " Must be great to have a crystal ball to hand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember a neighbor asking me at the start of the plandemic whether I was scared of the virus. I replied with a firm no, but told her I was scared about the damage to society, the economy, mental health, education, the destruction of businesses, fraud, excessive restrictions of freedom by power mad politicians and blanket lockdowns…a year later she came up to me and said it appears you were right Must be great to have a crystal ball to hand "Or common sense? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember a neighbor asking me at the start of the plandemic whether I was scared of the virus. I replied with a firm no, but told her I was scared about the damage to society, the economy, mental health, education, the destruction of businesses, fraud, excessive restrictions of freedom by power mad politicians and blanket lockdowns…a year later she came up to me and said it appears you were right " So what makes you think you were right and the government, scientists, doctors and advisors all wrong then? Politicians aside for the most part it was scientific and medical advice based on their knowledge and experience of a hitherto unknown virus and the restrictions were put in place to protect people not in prison. It was conspiracy theorist's and social media bullshiters whipping people into a frenzy about loss of freedoms that caused people to become anxious. During WW2 people were instructed to have blackout and stay inside with curtains drawn. Do you think people complained about loss of freedom's? No because people understood that it was for the greater good not about themselves. Yeah sure a few probably ignored it but this anti establishment agenda that's being thrown around by all who think they are "individuals" and not sheeple are actually causing more problems than solving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember a neighbor asking me at the start of the plandemic whether I was scared of the virus. I replied with a firm no, but told her I was scared about the damage to society, the economy, mental health, education, the destruction of businesses, fraud, excessive restrictions of freedom by power mad politicians and blanket lockdowns…a year later she came up to me and said it appears you were right " Yeah, that sounds feasible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember the original discussions on fab, and having just returned from Gran Canaria a few days before lockdown we were sure it was a bad flu and would be over in a few weeks, in fact we booked to go back to GC about a month later as prices were so low. I remember ridiculing someone for predicting death numbers would follow the numbers of detected positive cases in march/April and would double ever three days. Unfortunately he was right and the exponential growth only stopped due to lockdown. Wether you agree or disagree with the long term outcomes with the advantage of hindsight there was absolutely no other option regardless of the clusterfuk that followed with eat out to help out etc. " We were on Fuerteventura when the island went into lockdown, flew home the next day, thought the same as you... give it six or seven weeks and all will be good. That was four years ago to the week. One of us was considered vulnerable, one of works as a Respiratory Nurse. It wasn't fun, but we came out the other side  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember the original discussions on fab, and having just returned from Gran Canaria a few days before lockdown we were sure it was a bad flu and would be over in a few weeks, in fact we booked to go back to GC about a month later as prices were so low. I remember ridiculing someone for predicting death numbers would follow the numbers of detected positive cases in march/April and would double ever three days. Unfortunately he was right and the exponential growth only stopped due to lockdown. Wether you agree or disagree with the long term outcomes with the advantage of hindsight there was absolutely no other option regardless of the clusterfuk that followed with eat out to help out etc. We were on Fuerteventura when the island went into lockdown, flew home the next day, thought the same as you... give it six or seven weeks and all will be good. That was four years ago to the week. One of us was considered vulnerable, one of works as a Respiratory Nurse. It wasn't fun, but we came out the other side "We were in Fuertaventura and got out just as the news was reporting hotels in Tenerife were locking down | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember a neighbor asking me at the start of the plandemic whether I was scared of the virus. I replied with a firm no, but told her I was scared about the damage to society, the economy, mental health, education, the destruction of businesses, fraud, excessive restrictions of freedom by power mad politicians and blanket lockdowns…a year later she came up to me and said it appears you were right So what makes you think you were right and the government, scientists, doctors and advisors all wrong then? Politicians aside for the most part it was scientific and medical advice based on their knowledge and experience of a hitherto unknown virus and the restrictions were put in place to protect people not in prison. It was conspiracy theorist's and social media bullshiters whipping people into a frenzy about loss of freedoms that caused people to become anxious. During WW2 people were instructed to have blackout and stay inside with curtains drawn. Do you think people complained about loss of freedom's? No because people understood that it was for the greater good not about themselves. Yeah sure a few probably ignored it but this anti establishment agenda that's being thrown around by all who think they are "individuals" and not sheeple are actually causing more problems than solving." Exactly ?? correct. It was the ant establishment types and deluded individuals that caused many deaths and extended the fully needed lockdowns  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I remember a neighbor asking me at the start of the plandemic whether I was scared of the virus. I replied with a firm no, but told her I was scared about the damage to society, the economy, mental health, education, the destruction of businesses, fraud, excessive restrictions of freedom by power mad politicians and blanket lockdowns…a year later she came up to me and said it appears you were right So what makes you think you were right and the government, scientists, doctors and advisors all wrong then? Politicians aside for the most part it was scientific and medical advice based on their knowledge and experience of a hitherto unknown virus and the restrictions were put in place to protect people not in prison. It was conspiracy theorist's and social media bullshiters whipping people into a frenzy about loss of freedoms that caused people to become anxious. During WW2 people were instructed to have blackout and stay inside with curtains drawn. Do you think people complained about loss of freedom's? No because people understood that it was for the greater good not about themselves. Yeah sure a few probably ignored it but this anti establishment agenda that's being thrown around by all who think they are "individuals" and not sheeple are actually causing more problems than solving. Exactly ?? correct. It was the ant establishment types and deluded individuals that caused many deaths and extended the fully needed lockdowns "How exactly did they cause more deaths and extend the lockdowns? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I add something to the list : Those lacking any common sense ." What is common sense? Beyond the fact it's not very common. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I add something to the list : Those lacking any common sense ." And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I add something to the list : Those lacking any common sense . What is common sense? Beyond the fact it's not very common. " Lol I am sure you are well aware but its simply using good sense and sound judgement in the way you live life e.g. behaviour and practical matters etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I add something to the list : Those lacking any common sense . And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns?" And using reasonable thought as its fundamentally obvious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns?" You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I add something to the list : Those lacking any common sense . And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? And using reasonable thought as its fundamentally obvious." What is fundamentally obvious is your lack of evidence to back up your claims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth." Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth." It's not a case of not wanting to accept it. I don't know how they caused more deaths, and extended the lockdowns. That is why I asked the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. It's not a case of not wanting to accept it. I don't know how they caused more deaths, and extended the lockdowns. That is why I asked the question." Sit down and have a little think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach)" So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. " So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the reason for the low number of COVID-19 cases in Africa? What if the impact of Ivermectin interventions for another disease was the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rates caused by COVID-19 in Africa?" I suspect covid doesn’t stay viable long in high temperature, low humidity, high UV environment, but I’m guessing. Also Covid tends to hit older people worst and life expectancy in Africa is far lower than here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5 "So you've listed your opinions... Now where's the evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?"If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?
If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol"You know you're losing the argument? We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases? I think that's what the current debate is about  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?
If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol
You know you're losing the argument?
We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases?
I think that's what the current debate is about "There is no argument to lose . I am certainly not involved in any kind of argumemnt for something fundamentally obvious. Carry on if you want to argue that Black is really White or whatever maybe we need another number added for those just being obtuse and wanting daft arguments for tge sake of it. Let's number that 6 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?
If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol
You know you're losing the argument?
We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases?
I think that's what the current debate is about
There is no argument to lose . I am certainly not involved in any kind of argumemnt for something fundamentally obvious.
Carry on if you want to argue that Black is really White or whatever maybe we need another number added for those just being obtuse and wanting daft arguments for tge sake of it. Let's number that 6 "I didn't state non-compliance doesn't increase numbers, I'm simply asking if there's evidence for it. In the scheme of things I'd expect the numbers to be small. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?
If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol
You know you're losing the argument?
We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases?
I think that's what the current debate is about
There is no argument to lose . I am certainly not involved in any kind of argumemnt for something fundamentally obvious.
Carry on if you want to argue that Black is really White or whatever maybe we need another number added for those just being obtuse and wanting daft arguments for tge sake of it. Let's number that 6 "You said anti establishment types caused deaths and extended lockdowns. Do you mean when BLM protestors gathered in crowds demanding every white person take the knee? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you've listed your opinions... Now where's the evidence? If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol You know you're losing the argument? We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases? I think that's what the current debate is about "Surely the more times you are, for example, subjected to radiation the greater the chances you'll get cancer. The more time you are exposed to a communicable disease; the more chances you'll have of contracting it. Given that assertion; the less contact you have the less chances you have of getting the ailment/disease. Now I'm sure there are people more clever than me that can make those calculations. But that's a basic principle. From recollection they used an 'R' number to determine the efficacy of the measures they were trying to introduce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love the anti-vaxxers asking for evidence" And those playing devil's advocate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love the anti-vaxxers asking for evidence" Keep up, the label today is 'anti establishment types'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?
If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol
You know you're losing the argument?
We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases?
I think that's what the current debate is about
There is no argument to lose . I am certainly not involved in any kind of argumemnt for something fundamentally obvious.
Carry on if you want to argue that Black is really White or whatever maybe we need another number added for those just being obtuse and wanting daft arguments for tge sake of it. Let's number that 6
You said anti establishment types caused deaths and extended lockdowns.
Do you mean when BLM protestors gathered in crowds demanding every white person take the knee?"That's a 3 and 4 mainly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. "All these petty insults and slurs you can't even decide if it's anti vaxxer, Anti Vaxer, or antivaxxer! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists.
All these petty insults and slurs you can't even decide if it's anti vaxxer, Anti Vaxer, or antivaxxer!"No insults at all. Just pigeon holing things so to speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. "Since you dubbed me no. 6, you've made a fool of yourself. I'm a HCP and patient facing. I caught COVID when we didn't need the masks anymore. Hardly someone who doesn't believe in COVID. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. "I think you covered pretty much everything, mate. Well done! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists.
Since you dubbed me no. 6, you've made a fool of yourself. I'm a HCP and patient facing. I caught COVID when we didn't need the masks anymore. Hardly someone who doesn't believe in COVID."I think 6 does fit and add rude to that also? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love the anti-vaxxers asking for evidence And those playing devil's advocate "None of this. It’s called sealioning babe, and you’re doing it right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists.
Since you dubbed me no. 6, you've made a fool of yourself. I'm a HCP and patient facing. I caught COVID when we didn't need the masks anymore. Hardly someone who doesn't believe in COVID.
I think 6 does fit and add rude to that also?"You're not worth a response. Now you can qualify me as rude  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love the anti-vaxxers asking for evidence And those playing devil's advocate
None of this. It’s called sealioning babe, and you’re doing it right "Not heard that phrase before, but probably because I don't live on social media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists." Absolutely brilliant guys and a great profile too! I think the anti people on here fit into at least 1 category . Brilliant !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK." Love it when a non expert or domestic googles . Can you add that to your listing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK. Love it when a non expert or domestic googles . Can you add that to your listing " Thank you please see 6c though. I think that's covered ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK. Love it when a non expert or domestic googles . Can you add that to your listing " OpenAthens for work, Google for here. I don't hide the fact I quote things  .
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK. Love it when a non expert or domestic googles . Can you add that to your listing OpenAthens for work, Google for here. I don't hide the fact I quote things .
"Cut and paste non expert!! Please add this to it Sussex team up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists." You can continue your insults as much as you want and make yourself look as foolish as you want. Whereas I can puff myself up with pride every time I go into my study and look at my beautifully framed first class honours degree (that I achieved after acquiring a brain injury). 
As for porters and cleaners - everyone is needed to make the NHS work. So don't be insulting to them either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9. Degree Holders in non skilled subjects claiming expertise in all subjects lol" I have never refused to treat a patient, but I'm sure I could make an exception
Btw an expert in multiple subjects is a polymath. I'm extremely proud of what I have achieved that I don't need to pretend to be one.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And how exactly did they cause more deaths, and extend the lockdowns? You know the probable answer to your question but you don't want to accept it. And so on and so forth. Exactly.... Thats either total lacking in: Common sense, empathy for others or behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) So hang on a minute... Me not being allowed to go in and test and visit my dear old locked up mum, but a carer going in. Giving it to her and it killing her.. That's common sense? Me going for a walk in the country with nobody else around and sitting on a bench for 5 minutes in the sunshine, and being moved on by 2 police... Thats common sense? Either put some evidence up or admit its just an opinion. So: If we put numbers to this. 1. Common sense lacking. 2. Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. I think that shows 1 to 5
So you've listed your opinions...
Now where's the evidence?
If you haven't seen or understood the evidence that we have lived with thats a solid 3 but also 1,2, 4 and 5 lol
You know you're losing the argument?
We know the lockdowns worked (just having more than one speaks for itself), and out of lockdown early saw rise in numbers of cases. However, do we actually have evidence of non-compliance increasing numbers of cases?
I think that's what the current debate is about
There is no argument to lose . I am certainly not involved in any kind of argumemnt for something fundamentally obvious.
Carry on if you want to argue that Black is really White or whatever maybe we need another number added for those just being obtuse and wanting daft arguments for tge sake of it. Let's number that 6 "It's always nice to try and patronise... Step off your high horse. You have made statements. Either back them up with evidence or accept you're just spouting opinions. Which is fine and to which you and indeed anyone else is entitled.. You can do it nicely though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love the anti-vaxxers asking for evidence" Where do you get anti vaxxers from. I'm no anti vaxxer. But I also see way too many people insulting others with no evidence at all. It has nothing to do with anti vax. But everything to do with the vaxxers (to use your metaphor) saying stuff that isn't backed up by any facts.. Its an opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To sum up so far for the anti Covid believers we have: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. "So patronising and so incorrect but hey.. Its a forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would like to know how Trump made his lucky guess about Ivermectin? He was correct and science now agrees with him. What actually happened there? Anyone who wants to pile on me to mock needs to do some reading. How did he know? Feel free to elaborate on what trump said and the science now states. Trump suggested Ivermectin way back at the beginning of the pandemic. Go to the Journal of infection and search this: Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): an open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes I’d appreciate your opinion. Conclusion: The most recent Cochrane review on ivermectin for COVID-19 identified low certainty evidence that ivermectin treatment for outpatients does not reduce death or hospital admission over 28 days, and low certainty of evidence of no improvement on symptom resolution up to 14 days. The results from our trial add to the certainty to findings on these outcomes and support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research. I don't know what you're hoping for when it won't be used in the UK. Love it when a non expert or domestic googles . Can you add that to your listing OpenAthens for work, Google for here. I don't hide the fact I quote things .
Cut and paste non expert!! Please add this to it Sussex team up "What is it you are hoping to achieve by derailing a discussion thread and being insulting.? You just keep repeating the same joke. It wasn't funny first time round. No need for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9. Degree Holders in non skilled subjects claiming expertise in all subjects lol I have never refused to treat a patient, but I'm sure I could make an exception
Btw an expert in multiple subjects is a polymath. I'm extremely proud of what I have achieved that I don't need to pretend to be one.
"Are porters and cleaning staff who use Google to obtain "facts" now treating patients. If so I would happily give that treatment a miss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's hilarious. The way it shows rediculous so called experts having daft ideas. It's all light hearted banter lol" Banter is funny, you're not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. 8. Those Lacking any sense of humour. Now a 6b, 6c and 8 "As a nurse for over 30 years ( yes I know its hard to believe) this virus has definitely affected people's thinking and they need to give their head a wobble. Great idea to categorise them like this do you mind if I use your very funny posting and use this scoring system ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. 8. Those Lacking any sense of humour. Now a 6b, 6c and 8 "Hide behind YOUR humour and you don't then need evidence - rightio. To be fair I'm more likely to be the oddball of no.7 as I would rather fight for what's right than choose a side that is so prevalent on here. Again and again I state re vaccines to make an informed decision for oneself. Don't insult posters that have different views. Don't assume other posters are attacking you or your viewpoint (actually read their words) - oh and "you" = anyone reading. Finally, this thread is about the inquiry but as usual it goes off on seemingly them/us tangent re COVID and/or the vaccines. Back on track? I'm off to see my patients and obviously do some portering | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers, moon landing oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. 8. Those Lacking any sense of humour. Now a 6b, 6c and 8
Hide behind YOUR humour and you don't then need evidence - rightio.
To be fair I'm more likely to be the oddball of no.7 as I would rather fight for what's right than choose a side that is so prevalent on here. Again and again I state re vaccines to make an informed decision for oneself. Don't insult posters that have different views. Don't assume other posters are attacking you or your viewpoint (actually read their words) - oh and "you" = anyone reading.
Finally, this thread is about the inquiry but as usual it goes off on seemingly them/us tangent re COVID and/or the vaccines.
Back on track?
I'm off to see my patients and obviously do some portering "Fair enough Now a 6b, 6c ,7 and 8 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. As a nurse for over 30 years ( yes I know its hard to believe) this virus has definitely affected people's thinking and they need to give their head a wobble. Great idea to categorise them like this do you mind if I use your very funny posting and use this scoring system ? " Don't forget to show 6c to all the porters and cleaners where you work. I'm sure they'd be delighted with the lack of respect shown to their jobs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. As a nurse for over 30 years ( yes I know its hard to believe) this virus has definitely affected people's thinking and they need to give their head a wobble. Great idea to categorise them like this do you mind if I use your very funny posting and use this scoring system ? Don't forget to show 6c to all the porters and cleaners where you work. I'm sure they'd be delighted with the lack of respect shown to their jobs." I think they would appreciate it the way it's intended. It's called SENSE OF HUMOUR | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. Now a 6b, 6c and 8
Hide behind YOUR humour and you don't then need evidence - rightio.
To be fair I'm more likely to be the oddball of no.7 as I would rather fight for what's right than choose a side that is so prevalent on here. Again and again I state re vaccines to make an informed decision for oneself. Don't insult posters that have different views. Don't assume other posters are attacking you or your viewpoint (actually read their words) - oh and "you" = anyone reading.
Finally, this thread is about the inquiry but as usual it goes off on seemingly them/us tangent re COVID and/or the vaccines.
Back on track?
I'm off to see my patients and obviously do some portering "I get offended when people get so easily offended by humour lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Update: 1. Common sense lackers. 2. Zero Empathy for others 3. Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. Now a 6b, 6c and 8
Hide behind YOUR humour and you don't then need evidence - rightio.
To be fair I'm more likely to be the oddball of no.7 as I would rather fight for what's right than choose a side that is so prevalent on here. Again and again I state re vaccines to make an informed decision for oneself. Don't insult posters that have different views. Don't assume other posters are attacking you or your viewpoint (actually read their words) - oh and "you" = anyone reading.
Finally, this thread is about the inquiry but as usual it goes off on seemingly them/us tangent re COVID and/or the vaccines.
Back on track?
I'm off to see my patients and obviously do some portering
I get offended when people get so easily offended by humour lol"If only people didn't get offended when asked for evidence... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
TTFN | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't forget peeps - to be offended is a choice. To assume another person is offended is... What's a good word for stupidity?
TTFN"I feel a new category looming..... lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None taken .... Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called " A little bit of common"" I got the 'none taken' bit, but any chance you can repeat the rest in plain English please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None taken .... Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called " A little bit of common" I got the 'none taken' bit, but any chance you can repeat the rest in plain English please?" Common sense would tell me that it's a saying for " A little bit of common sense ". This is often abbreviated to " A little bit of common" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None taken .... Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called " A little bit of common" I got the 'none taken' bit, but any chance you can repeat the rest in plain English please?" Category 1 for you I believe lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None taken .... Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called " A little bit of common" I got the 'none taken' bit, but any chance you can repeat the rest in plain English please? Common sense would tell me that it's a saying for " A little bit of common sense ". This is often abbreviated to " A little bit of common" " You left out "Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called". Wtf is this all about? If you're going to mock people about lack of common sense, the sensible thing to do would be to use plain English, not gibberish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None taken .... Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called " A little bit of common" I got the 'none taken' bit, but any chance you can repeat the rest in plain English please? Common sense would tell me that it's a saying for " A little bit of common sense ". This is often abbreviated to " A little bit of common" You left out "Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called". Wtf is this all about? If you're going to mock people about lack of common sense, the sensible thing to do would be to use plain English, not gibberish. " Category 1 and 8 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None taken .... Evidence not required in the categorisation only personal opinions of those with what was called " A little bit of common" I got the 'none taken' bit, but any chance you can repeat the rest in plain English please? Category 1 for you I believe lol" Do you think we could get back to the op please? Do you have any comments on the op.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can i order a bit of 1 6a and 7 please from the menu " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Due to popular demand and special requests. 1 has been updated for anyone lacking.... Update: 1. Use a bit of common - For those specifically and completely lacking in Common Sense. 2. Me me me its all about Me - For those that have Zero Empathy for others. 3. Big Bird lovers - Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Sandwich Shortages for picnics - Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Simple Soles - Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Anti People - Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers - Those that think moon landing didn't take place, oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. 8. Humourless- Those Lacking any sense of humour. 9. Snowflakes - Those easily offended by nothing offensive. 10. Googlers - Those that use Google to try to find something to support their views and blindly use it to prove its evidence." Very good well done. Now do you think we can return to the op. If not perhaps start your own thread of categories..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Due to popular demand and special requests. 1 has been updated for anyone lacking.... Update: 1. Use a bit of common - For those specifically and completely lacking in Common Sense. 2. Me me me its all about Me - For those that have Zero Empathy for others. 3. Big Bird lovers - Behaviour like that of an Ostrich (E.G. Head in the sand approach) 4. Sandwich Shortages for picnics - Those Just lacking basic understanding what going on and unable or unwilling to accept it. 5. Simple Soles - Those Lacking respect, understanding of others or care for rules of a decent society. 6a. Anti People - Obtuse types who are anti establishment who just like to argue. 6b. Includes all or some of 6a but with additional rudeness. 6c. Includes all or some of 6a but claims expert knowledge as once was a porter or cleaner in hospital setting. 7. Flat earthers - Those that think moon landing didn't take place, oddballs, Anti Vaxers and conspiracy theorists. 8. Humourless- Those Lacking any sense of humour. 9. Snowflakes - Those easily offended by nothing offensive. 10. Googlers - Those that use Google to try to find something to support their views and blindly use it to prove its evidence. Very good well done. Now do you think we can return to the op. If not perhaps start your own thread of categories..? " Thanks for the information I never knew No9 was a snowflake. Learn something new every day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some serious research is required looking at this thread. Most of what happened was avoidable and politicised. Lockdowns caused our economic headaches that we are all now suffering. Masks never worked, and they knew it. The vaccines were never meant for everyone but were pushed on the entire population including kids, and are currently causing horrible side effects. The population was very effectively brainwashed and is still mostly in the dark about what actually went on. Even the way excess deaths are measured has been changed, not just in the UK but in many other countries, to mask the rise in the death rates of younger people. Totally shocking, but hey, plenty of the rich got richer. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some serious research is required looking at this thread. Most of what happened was avoidable and politicised. Lockdowns caused our economic headaches that we are all now suffering. Masks never worked, and they knew it. The vaccines were never meant for everyone but were pushed on the entire population including kids, and are currently causing horrible side effects. The population was very effectively brainwashed and is still mostly in the dark about what actually went on. Even the way excess deaths are measured has been changed, not just in the UK but in many other countries, to mask the rise in the death rates of younger people. Totally shocking, but hey, plenty of the rich got richer. " Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter unfortunately our experiences are totally opposite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The trust has gone and will be very difficult to get it back. For me to regain a little trust it's about learning from mistakes along with showing we have a robust emergency plan. I was amazed a suitable one didn't exist , only one based on influenza. Alongside that the preparation of PPE for support staff needs to be in place in tge same way it was for swine flu but was then disposed of ." How different would you expect a plan for one respiratory virus Corona) be to another respiratory virus (influenza)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some serious research is required looking at this thread. Most of what happened was avoidable and politicised. Lockdowns caused our economic headaches that we are all now suffering. Masks never worked, and they knew it. The vaccines were never meant for everyone but were pushed on the entire population including kids, and are currently causing horrible side effects. The population was very effectively brainwashed and is still mostly in the dark about what actually went on. Even the way excess deaths are measured has been changed, not just in the UK but in many other countries, to mask the rise in the death rates of younger people. Totally shocking, but hey, plenty of the rich got richer. " FP3 masks could have been a lot more effective but we had no supplies held plus difficult to work in for any length of time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think some serious research is required looking at this thread. Most of what happened was avoidable and politicised. Lockdowns caused our economic headaches that we are all now suffering. Masks never worked, and they knew it. The vaccines were never meant for everyone but were pushed on the entire population including kids, and are currently causing horrible side effects. The population was very effectively brainwashed and is still mostly in the dark about what actually went on. Even the way excess deaths are measured has been changed, not just in the UK but in many other countries, to mask the rise in the death rates of younger people. Totally shocking, but hey, plenty of the rich got richer. " Totally disagree who was brainwashed . No one ! Horrible side affects extremely rare | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. As many others he mentioned this one was proven not to be effective which is not surprising as it is anti-parasitic but when we didn't know much about COVID anything was worth considering. https://www.principletrial.org/results/results | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each could be different in terms of cleaning regimes, isolation times and distances, bed distances Ppe types , mask types , rate of spread etc . It's not beyond to have at least a plan in place rather than knee jerk on the hoof planning" For a novel virus . Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Had we been prepared for a flu pandemic, we would have been better prepared for the pandemic we endured. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally disagree who was brainwashed . No one ! Horrible side affects extremely rare" Thats the most brainwashed statement one could make. Spilt my beer laughing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Came on the forum for a bit of something more meaningful than just sex. Reading the thread tired me out honestly. Too many tensions and quoting things that one doesn't fully understand, but then that's just my opinion. My hope for the inquiry would be to understand what went wrong in the early days. In example it was understandable that it was difficult and took time initially to test someone but I will never get over the fact that only people that had history of travel to China were being tested although there were already cases in other countries and virus was obviously spreading. My first case was a lady that had no travel history, her husband did travel to UK few days before she was symptomatic, she worked with private patients from all over the world, anyone could have easily picked the virus on an airport, she was symptomatic for days and had several trips to A&E but couldn't be tested due to government orders, although it was obvious what was wrong. The world responded too slow, UK responded too slow and then we unfortunately had some decisions that were delayed and some that were rushed all with devastating effects as we wre dealing with the unknown. Even with all of it the politicians stayed true to themselves, they weren't transparent and didn't listen to actual experts on the field until it was too late. I don't believe much would go differently if we had another pandemic in 10 years but I would be immensely pleased if I was proven wrong. " Very difficult reading this a little more punctuation maybe or sentences might help? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally disagree who was brainwashed . No one ! Horrible side affects extremely rare Thats the most brainwashed statement one could make. Spilt my beer laughing "Oh dear another one that thinks the world is flat and the moon landings didn't happen. Get real man | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally disagree who was brainwashed . No one ! Horrible side affects extremely rare Thats the most brainwashed statement one could make. Spilt my beer laughing "I would pack up your drinking as its affecting your brain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally disagree who was brainwashed . No one ! Horrible side affects extremely rare Thats the most brainwashed statement one could make. Spilt my beer laughing
I would pack up your drinking as its affecting your brain "Think that sums it up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
