CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 18)
Discussion
Challo said:
Is he a brilliant politician? Really? Apart from his stance on vaccines what else has he done that is so brilliant?
He's my MP, and he's helped me a few times, on both personal and business issues. Brilliant might be stretching things, but he's been very brave in standing up, and he is a good constituent MP. 
JagLover said:
There are few things that are genuinely new.
Just another iteration of the old "military-industrial" complex that Ike warned about.
Sound at all familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93ind...
The only difference now is that for some bizarre reason a large number of folks who think they are "progressive" think that blind support of an agenda that includes most of the same elements is the only acceptable POV.
The "progressive" support for this agenda is bizarre if you look at the ideology, but makes a lot more sense if you look at the sociology of it. It picked up almost immediately where communism failed when it was "born" at the Rio summit in the early 90s and grew as religion declined. This seemed to bring together dispirate groups concerned with the environment, wealth distribution, animal rights, the (receding) possibility of nuclear war etc, and focus them on one thing.Just another iteration of the old "military-industrial" complex that Ike warned about.
Sound at all familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93ind...
The only difference now is that for some bizarre reason a large number of folks who think they are "progressive" think that blind support of an agenda that includes most of the same elements is the only acceptable POV.
If you'd been a an academic, clergyman or artist with communist sympathies in the cold war era you'd he an environmentalist vaxophile now.
It has it's revolutionary arm. It has a utopian vision. Its genuine concerns about pollution and resource use. Its corporate backers who see opportunities for wealth and popularity. Its political spokesmen who see a grander role for themselves. Like the old religion, it tells us that our comfort and wealth in this life must come at some cost. And like both communism and religion it claims to have the answer to how we deal with powers beyond our immediate control. The answer of course being to give power and control to them.
What I find more baffling is why the opposition to these movements is so ad hoc and narrow.
There was never anything especially conservative or liberating about untrammelled corporatism or hedonistic decadence. They were just sharp sticks aimed at communism's weak points.
The best explanation I can think of is that the 'left' are better at selling an animating vision which plays to fears and aspirations, while the 'right' (they are such inadequate terms, but useful shorthand here) are good at seeing the problems with this, but not necessarily good at selling an alternative, or even refocussing people on the more constructive things. Such things are often more mundane and earthly - if you want clean energy then domestic natural gas is way more effective than wind farms, imports and then coal when it all goes wrong. If you want public health then basic exercise and a healthy diet will achieve far more than closing down society for months on end until you can buy everyone dubious vaccines. If you want to improve the developing world then letting them develop will do it far faster and more effectively than foriegn aid, concerts and NGOs ever could. And if you want to raise the standard of living for the poor then a healthy economy and sensible legal system will produce far better results than all the elaborate welfare schemes and redistribution efforts they can dream up.
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves. What that didn't do was capture the popular imagination enough to defend and enhance that balance or bring on board those who had a need for a deeper and more profound narrative.
This is something like my understanding of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly between the unrest of 1848 and 1914. Immense progress was made in many ways and it could be seen as a golden era, but it then collapsed into the stupidity of WW1.
J210 said:
To be fair, Reicher/Michie were more of the school of insulting and shaming 'bad' people who weren't complying. So less of the 'poo at paul/ruggedscotty' type predicting covid disaster at every point but more like some of the notable 'anti-CT' posters as found here.......JuanCarlosFandango said:
The "progressive" support for this agenda is bizarre if you look at the ideology, but makes a lot more sense if you look at the sociology of it. It picked up almost immediately where communism failed when it was "born" at the Rio summit in the early 90s and grew as religion declined. This seemed to bring together dispirate groups concerned with the environment, wealth distribution, animal rights, the (receding) possibility of nuclear war etc, and focus them on one thing.
If you'd been a an academic, clergyman or artist with communist sympathies in the cold war era you'd he an environmentalist vaxophile now.
It has it's revolutionary arm. It has a utopian vision. Its genuine concerns about pollution and resource use. Its corporate backers who see opportunities for wealth and popularity. Its political spokesmen who see a grander role for themselves. Like the old religion, it tells us that our comfort and wealth in this life must come at some cost. And like both communism and religion it claims to have the answer to how we deal with powers beyond our immediate control. The answer of course being to give power and control to them.
What I find more baffling is why the opposition to these movements is so ad hoc and narrow.
There was never anything especially conservative or liberating about untrammelled corporatism or hedonistic decadence. They were just sharp sticks aimed at communism's weak points.
The best explanation I can think of is that the 'left' are better at selling an animating vision which plays to fears and aspirations, while the 'right' (they are such inadequate terms, but useful shorthand here) are good at seeing the problems with this, but not necessarily good at selling an alternative, or even refocussing people on the more constructive things. Such things are often more mundane and earthly - if you want clean energy then domestic natural gas is way more effective than wind farms, imports and then coal when it all goes wrong. If you want public health then basic exercise and a healthy diet will achieve far more than closing down society for months on end until you can buy everyone dubious vaccines. If you want to improve the developing world then letting them develop will do it far faster and more effectively than foriegn aid, concerts and NGOs ever could. And if you want to raise the standard of living for the poor then a healthy economy and sensible legal system will produce far better results than all the elaborate welfare schemes and redistribution efforts they can dream up.
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves. What that didn't do was capture the popular imagination enough to defend and enhance that balance or bring on board those who had a need for a deeper and more profound narrative.
This is something like my understanding of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly between the unrest of 1848 and 1914. Immense progress was made in many ways and it could be seen as a golden era, but it then collapsed into the stupidity of WW1.
Yes you are right. If you'd been a an academic, clergyman or artist with communist sympathies in the cold war era you'd he an environmentalist vaxophile now.
It has it's revolutionary arm. It has a utopian vision. Its genuine concerns about pollution and resource use. Its corporate backers who see opportunities for wealth and popularity. Its political spokesmen who see a grander role for themselves. Like the old religion, it tells us that our comfort and wealth in this life must come at some cost. And like both communism and religion it claims to have the answer to how we deal with powers beyond our immediate control. The answer of course being to give power and control to them.
What I find more baffling is why the opposition to these movements is so ad hoc and narrow.
There was never anything especially conservative or liberating about untrammelled corporatism or hedonistic decadence. They were just sharp sticks aimed at communism's weak points.
The best explanation I can think of is that the 'left' are better at selling an animating vision which plays to fears and aspirations, while the 'right' (they are such inadequate terms, but useful shorthand here) are good at seeing the problems with this, but not necessarily good at selling an alternative, or even refocussing people on the more constructive things. Such things are often more mundane and earthly - if you want clean energy then domestic natural gas is way more effective than wind farms, imports and then coal when it all goes wrong. If you want public health then basic exercise and a healthy diet will achieve far more than closing down society for months on end until you can buy everyone dubious vaccines. If you want to improve the developing world then letting them develop will do it far faster and more effectively than foriegn aid, concerts and NGOs ever could. And if you want to raise the standard of living for the poor then a healthy economy and sensible legal system will produce far better results than all the elaborate welfare schemes and redistribution efforts they can dream up.
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves. What that didn't do was capture the popular imagination enough to defend and enhance that balance or bring on board those who had a need for a deeper and more profound narrative.
This is something like my understanding of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly between the unrest of 1848 and 1914. Immense progress was made in many ways and it could be seen as a golden era, but it then collapsed into the stupidity of WW1.
In isolation the blind defence of corporate interests might seem counter-intuitive except of course where they have allied themselves to the new faith.
The lack of any single "counter-faith" explains why there is no counter by centre-right governments. They blindly sign up for things that will completely transform our economy and society, "net zero" being a classic example, with little understanding but with fear of being denounced as heretics to the new religion. That is except where they have already been co-opted.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves.
You might be looking back in time with slightly rose tinted specs there I think...... isaldiri said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves.
You might be looking back in time with slightly rose tinted specs there I think...... Though it's less about nostalgia for the 90s themselves and more about the missed opportunity.
Dr John Campbell discusses a Norwegian pre-print on the question:
Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyo2UNQcdpQ
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0350/v...
Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyo2UNQcdpQ
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202302.0350/v...
Paper on 2021 injection uptake vs 2022 Excess ACM said:
Abstract
We primarily study a possible link between 2021 COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe and monthly 2022 excess all-cause mortality, i.e., mortality higher than before the pandemic.
Analyses of 31 countries weighted by population size show that all-cause mortality during the first nine months of 2022 increased more the higher the 2021 vaccination uptake; a one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 by 0.105 percent (95% CI, 0.075-0.134).
When controlling for alternative explanations, the association remained robust, and we discuss the result emphasizing causality as well as potential ecological fallacy.
Also, the study shows that 2021 all-cause mortality was lower the higher the vaccination uptake, but this association became non-significant when controlling for alternative explanations.
We primarily study a possible link between 2021 COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe and monthly 2022 excess all-cause mortality, i.e., mortality higher than before the pandemic.
Analyses of 31 countries weighted by population size show that all-cause mortality during the first nine months of 2022 increased more the higher the 2021 vaccination uptake; a one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 by 0.105 percent (95% CI, 0.075-0.134).
When controlling for alternative explanations, the association remained robust, and we discuss the result emphasizing causality as well as potential ecological fallacy.
Also, the study shows that 2021 all-cause mortality was lower the higher the vaccination uptake, but this association became non-significant when controlling for alternative explanations.
Roman Rhodes said:
I almost admire your dog with a bone like tenacity on this but your attempts to steer the point I’m making towards your hysterical obsession with what the US rules are, rather than the specific treatment of Djokovic, is rather tedious.
You have claimed Djokovic is “being made an example of”, he is being “punished”. The US cannot “give in to a high profile ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Djokovic”, “there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic”, “he is being punished because the state does not want to lose face”. Sorry, but you have clearly made the assertion that he is being treated differently.
Unfortunately, as with your assertion that the ‘conspiracy theory’ only exists in my imagination, it seems you have to be continually reminded of the facts.
Carry on bleating about the US rules if it makes you feel better. I’ll stick with my opinion that the evidence-free claims as to why Djokovic isn’t playing tennis in the US are conspiracy theories.
I have never said or implied that Djokovic was being treated differently to other unvaccinated people. You have claimed Djokovic is “being made an example of”, he is being “punished”. The US cannot “give in to a high profile ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Djokovic”, “there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic”, “he is being punished because the state does not want to lose face”. Sorry, but you have clearly made the assertion that he is being treated differently.
Unfortunately, as with your assertion that the ‘conspiracy theory’ only exists in my imagination, it seems you have to be continually reminded of the facts.
Carry on bleating about the US rules if it makes you feel better. I’ll stick with my opinion that the evidence-free claims as to why Djokovic isn’t playing tennis in the US are conspiracy theories.
I have no idea why you think otherwise.
M1AGM said:
In other news BJ is back in the limelight in case anyone missed it. What I find fascinating is the constant ‘it wasn’t fair. i couldn’t do X whilst you were having a party, you broke the rules’, when the question should be ‘I wasn’t allowed to do X because you said covid was so serious we had to stay apart, yet you didn’t have those concerns for yourself and your work colleagues, why is that?’
Yes it is mindblowing that no one at all asks that. Douglas Quaid said:
M1AGM said:
In other news BJ is back in the limelight in case anyone missed it. What I find fascinating is the constant ‘it wasn’t fair. i couldn’t do X whilst you were having a party, you broke the rules’, when the question should be ‘I wasn’t allowed to do X because you said covid was so serious we had to stay apart, yet you didn’t have those concerns for yourself and your work colleagues, why is that?’
Yes it is mindblowing that no one at all asks that. Must admit I'm struggling to get too worked up about it all. Boris getting a cake was reported in The Times at the time (June 2020) and no one seemed particularly bothered about it then, now it's all Grr Boris from the usual suspects.
One credit I will give Boris however is that he seems to have broken Alistair Campbell, who's been posting all sorts of unhinged guff about how bad it is to lie to parliament (lol), and even floated the conspiracy theory that Boris wasn't actually seriously ill in hospital.
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/16384542...
I am of course sure that in amongst all the people calling him out on it we could find our resident anti-CTers, both from here and that other thread.
Elysium said:
Roman Rhodes said:
I almost admire your dog with a bone like tenacity on this but your attempts to steer the point I’m making towards your hysterical obsession with what the US rules are, rather than the specific treatment of Djokovic, is rather tedious.
You have claimed Djokovic is “being made an example of”, he is being “punished”. The US cannot “give in to a high profile ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Djokovic”, “there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic”, “he is being punished because the state does not want to lose face”. Sorry, but you have clearly made the assertion that he is being treated differently.
Unfortunately, as with your assertion that the ‘conspiracy theory’ only exists in my imagination, it seems you have to be continually reminded of the facts.
Carry on bleating about the US rules if it makes you feel better. I’ll stick with my opinion that the evidence-free claims as to why Djokovic isn’t playing tennis in the US are conspiracy theories.
I have never said or implied that Djokovic was being treated differently to other unvaccinated people. You have claimed Djokovic is “being made an example of”, he is being “punished”. The US cannot “give in to a high profile ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Djokovic”, “there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic”, “he is being punished because the state does not want to lose face”. Sorry, but you have clearly made the assertion that he is being treated differently.
Unfortunately, as with your assertion that the ‘conspiracy theory’ only exists in my imagination, it seems you have to be continually reminded of the facts.
Carry on bleating about the US rules if it makes you feel better. I’ll stick with my opinion that the evidence-free claims as to why Djokovic isn’t playing tennis in the US are conspiracy theories.
I have no idea why you think otherwise.
If you remember, this was addressed to you and I said it was a conspiracy theory:
grumbledoak said:
This isn't about virtue signalling, or blame, or the vaccine. It's about power and control. A famous person, he publicly refused to comply. Now he is being made an example of.
You then weighed in:Elysium said:
PurplePangolin said:
It is you that has called it a conspiracy theory - quelle surprise
Some of the more antagonistic posters bring ‘conspiracy theory’ into discussions because it provides them with a way of insulting people they don’t agree with without openly breaking forum rules. You can keep wriggling but words have meanings and yours are there for all to see.
Roman Rhodes said:
So, not only did you disagree that the original claim was a conspiracy theory you've continued to portray Djokovic as a specific martyr to the US rules.
You can keep wriggling but words have meanings and yours are there for all to see.
Small hint here - just because Elysium was disagreeing with you calling every man and his dog a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean he was agreeing with the point made. You can keep wriggling but words have meanings and yours are there for all to see.
Call it nuance, shades of grey etc, none of which are new concepts.
It does appear that suggesting any opinion you disagree with is a conspiracy theory is a new thing, mostly practiced by midwits who don't get the above concepts.
bodhi said:
Roman Rhodes said:
So, not only did you disagree that the original claim was a conspiracy theory you've continued to portray Djokovic as a specific martyr to the US rules.
You can keep wriggling but words have meanings and yours are there for all to see.
Small hint here - just because Elysium was disagreeing with you calling every man and his dog a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean he was agreeing with the point made. You can keep wriggling but words have meanings and yours are there for all to see.
Call it nuance, shades of grey etc, none of which are new concepts.
It does appear that suggesting any opinion you disagree with is a conspiracy theory is a new thing, mostly practiced by midwits who don't get the above concepts.
Roman Rhodes said:
If I may offer a small hint back: my comment about a conspiracy theory was directed at one specific post from one specific poster. If Elysium thinks I was "calling every man and his dog a conspiracy theorist" he is incorrect. Perhaps your recollection is wrong? No need for claims of victim status in this particular instance.
I was basing my comment on the evidence you provided as part of your post - and it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. I could scroll back a few pages, but considering your post was an attempt at a "mic drop" I was more than happy to point out what a piss poor attempt it was. bodhi said:
Roman Rhodes said:
If I may offer a small hint back: my comment about a conspiracy theory was directed at one specific post from one specific poster. If Elysium thinks I was "calling every man and his dog a conspiracy theorist" he is incorrect. Perhaps your recollection is wrong? No need for claims of victim status in this particular instance.
I was basing my comment on the evidence you provided as part of your post - and it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. I could scroll back a few pages, but considering your post was an attempt at a "mic drop" I was more than happy to point out what a piss poor attempt it was. Quite odd that the person making the claim of conspiracy hasn't commented but multiple others have got offended on his/her behalf and piled in. Oh well, keeps the thread going I suppose.
Roman Rhodes said:
"mic drop" - really?! Should I now be accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist to keep you happy? Perhaps I should have just been a bit more blunt and suggested what you do with your misguided "hint".
Quite odd that the person making the claim of conspiracy hasn't commented but multiple others have got offended on his/her behalf and piled in. Oh well, keeps the thread going I suppose.
Yes that's the entire reason you're being called out - to keep the thread going. Nothing to do with the fact you keep sharing your word salad with us, but entirely to keep the thread going. Quite odd that the person making the claim of conspiracy hasn't commented but multiple others have got offended on his/her behalf and piled in. Oh well, keeps the thread going I suppose.
You got us I guess!
However it's incredibly interesting with your hatred of conspiracy theories, you seem quite quiet on the Campbell tweet I shared earlier - which I'm sure you would if you were engaging in good faith.
Did anyone notice what Rishi said at todays PMQs?
I thought I was hearing things but he said that if someone had been injured as a result of the vaccine they could take the manufacturer to court for damages...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=833qCRqNJMI
from 32:40...
I thought I was hearing things but he said that if someone had been injured as a result of the vaccine they could take the manufacturer to court for damages...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=833qCRqNJMI
from 32:40...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff