CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

[James6112]

Roderick Spode said:

Had an online meeting this evening with research institute types regarding animal welfare, and specifically around the notification & control of disease. When asked about the rollout of policy & notifications, several of the respondents said something to the effect of "no way, I don't trust government at all when it comes to disease control or policy."

To which the researchers replied "yeah, we're hearing that a lot from all the groups so far."

Sure, we believe you
One for the conspiracy thread.

[119]

r3g said:

From another thread. They're srill out there

captain_cynic said:

Giving the benefit of the doubt that the [OP] didn't just want to start a mask debate (they did work, one of the reasons we don't need them any more)...

4 years on and they're still trotting out this BS.

You should post in there and put them right.

[alangla]

No doubt this will be a surprise to absolutely no-one, but it appears the inquiry has got documentary evidence that Sturgeon & Sridhar were following a Zero Covid policy:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/13/ni...

Searching the UK inquiry site for Sridhar and then choosing “evidence” shows a pile of documents published on 7/3/24, I’ve not looked through them all but I can see the one talking about elimination strategies.

[Challo]

Roderick Spode said:

RSTurboPaul said:

Challo said:

mko9 said:

It blows my mind sometimes to be reminded of the idiotic extremes we went to during Covid. I was sat at the dentist office, flipping through a National Geographic from March 2021. There was an article about Mars, and the author talks about how he had to get special permission to go to the University of Virginia observatory because it was closed to the public due to Covid. Really?! We can't have two people in a big empty building with the roof open out in the middle of nowhere because Covids? WTF did they think was going to happen??

I get it sounds stupid, but the issue is that rules needed to be put in place but unfortunately its very much a one size fits all approach, which in practice doesn't work.

Therefore you have lots of stupid situations like the one you mentioned because of said rules.

[citation needed]

Political orthodoxy - "Something needs to be done; this is something, therefore we must do it."

The rules as proposed implemented were overbearing and nonsensical, cheered on by the social media Karens - but yeah, the fringe situations were definitely the problem and not the idiotic rules

But it wasn't even the fringe situations that were idiotic - I recall the pantomime of people in the office sitting at their desks sans bit of cloth from Etsy with cats on it life saving face covering, then getting up to make a coffee or go to speak with someone and religiously putting on said face covering. Very clever virus, that doesn't exist at all below four feet off the ground. Or the logic-defying cretinous stupidity of watching punters in a pub putting on their bit of cloth to go for a wizz, or being refused a round of drinks unless they were purchased with a 'substantial' meal. Incredibly clever virus, stays away from foodstuffs, but only dependent on the scale of comestibles offered. Packet of crisps - instant infection. Plate of chips - repels viruses. Amazing The Science.

It doesn't just sound stupid, it was stupid. But the vast majority of the population went along with it obediently like good little sheep. I'm sure even the government(s) were surprised at the unquestioning compliance to made-up-on-the-hoof-and-constantly-changing diktats from on high, masquerading as considered scientific discourse.

Masks are not required.
Masks are essential.
A Chinese-style lockdown will not be required.
Everyone stay in your homes.
Social distancing 2 metres.
1.5 metres.
1 metre.
15 million jabs to freedom!
The jabs prevent transmission.
There are zero side effects.
Take another jab.
Have a booster.
Safe and effective.
We never said they would prevent transmission.
These side effects are nothing to do with the jabs.
It's not a side effect, it's Long Covid.
Only go out for one hour's essential exercise once a day, no more than 5 miles from your home.
A cup of coffee whilst walking constitutes a picnic and will see you fined.
Gyms and leisure centres are virus hotspots, but chip shops and takeaways are safe.
Only eight people from three households are allowed to gather in one place. Or is it six from two? Cross the border and it changes, because Science.
Open all windows and doors in an enclosed space in the depths of winter to prevent illness.
Elderly and vulnerable people should be contained and isolated away from human contact, and prevented from seeing loved ones, for their health and wellbeing.

But yeah. The problem wasn't the insane policies. They were all perfectly reasonable. It was the unexpected fringe circumstances like two people meeting in a remote observatory.

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

[Pupp]

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

Well, best hope nothing happens anytime soon that requires such blind faith in our leadership again, being as it was gratuitously and cynically abused by the fkers. As is becoming quite clear for all to see (if they want to look).

[Biker 1]

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

Bloody hell. Are there really people who still think like this???
It was completely obvious from the Diamond Princess.

[cliffe_mafia]

Pupp said:

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

Well, best hope nothing happens anytime soon that requires such blind faith in our leadership again, being as it was gratuitously and cynically abused by the fkers. As is becoming quite clear for all to see (if they want to look).

Not sure what else you could call them other than sheep. Identical scenario happens again and even knowing what we do now they'd blindly go along with the lockdown, mask, jab, mandate, passport, furlough nonsense all over again and beg for more, harder and longer. If it saves one life, eh?

[dandarez]

Biker 1 said:

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

Bloody hell. Are there really people who still think like this???
It was completely obvious from the Diamond Princess.

Challo perhaps should change his username to Shallow?

Re the bold above. One, if not my first, comment back on the original covid thread was when I watched the coaches with the casually dressed 'shirt-sleeved' drivers each with a full-on Hazmat-suited person sat next to them, leave the Brize Norton airbase near me.
An 'unknown' highly deadly virus we were told. The coaches all about to be driven over 160 miles 'oop north'. When I got back home I posted on here 'None of this seems to add up. What the fk is really going on?'

[jameswills]

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

I don’t blame people like yourself, it’s a lifetime of habitually watching the TV and radio for “news”, but if you’d just done the complete opposite and switched off, you and everyone else would at worst be none the wiser and be much happier, healthier and wealthier.

A lot was known about this “virus” very early on, but people were not being listened to. The only misinformation was coming direct from Downing Street every single bloody day. All I can hope is that you and others like you have learned a valuable lesson that we will not repeat.

[jameswills]

dandarez said:

Challo perhaps should change his username to Shallow?

Re the bold above. One, if not my first, comment back on the original covid thread was when I watched the coaches with the casually dressed 'shirt-sleeved' drivers each with a full-on Hazmat-suited person sat next to them, leave the Brize Norton airbase near me.
An 'unknown' highly deadly virus we were told. The coaches all about to be driven over 160 miles 'oop north'. When I got back home I posted on here 'None of this seems to add up. What the fk is really going on?'

Absolutely nothing made sense, you turned on the TV/radio and got one thing, looked out the window and got the complete opposite. It was pure gaslighting, criminally so.

[Elysium]

B'stard Child said:

bodhi said:

Interesting read from Martin Kulldorff, who sadly appears to have been let go from his position at Harvard for his position on Vaccine Mandates.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramp...

Struggled to disagree with what he said at the time, now two years later it seems even more unforgivable.....

Very good article - thanks for sharing

I agree. In fact I think this article will become an important part of the historical record because it shines a bright light on the hysteria surrounding our response to COVID.

Kulldorff is the opposite of an anti-vaxxer. He is one of the USAs leading experts in vaccine safety. In the article he is describing the insanity of an unarguable expert being bullied into saying things he knows to be incorrect, by a baying mob that is clearly caught up in mass hysteria, and wilfully ignorant to basic facts.

This is the tweet that he says got him fired as a Harvard professor:

Martin Kulldorff said:

Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.

This is a statement that is self evidently true. In fact it reflects where the UK ended up on recommendations for COVID vaccines. The problem for Kulldorff is that, at the time he said this, all of the Ivy League Universities were mandating vaccines for young healthy students. They continued this long after it became clear that Kulldorff was right. In fact they only ended it in the last few weeks. They required young healthy students to take repeat boosters knowing that these had no real impact on the transmission of COVID disease and that the people being forced to take them gained little or no benefit.

In that context, his mischievous attempt to claim a religious exemption rings incredibly true:

Martin Kulldorff said:

Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination.

[Elysium]

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media. No wonder people were ‘good little sheep’ in your mind.

You need to understand that people are, quite rightly, angry about lockdowns and the absurd rules that underpinned them.

There is a lot of difference between rules and guidance. Guidance would have allowed people to use their judgement. Rules resulted in people being arrested because they sat on a bench or went for a walk with a friend. They resulted in people being kept apart from dying relatives and unable to attend the funerals of people they loved.

You are right of course that people looked to leaders and experts for guidance.

Unfortunately, we did know a lot about this virus. We knew it was not all that bad, but that it would cause enough disruption to scare us all.

Instead of trying to calm us, our leaders and experts recognised that it would be better for them to harness that fear.

We wanted these restrictions, so we got them. The leaders and the experts told us only what we wanted to hear. Instead of confronting the baying mob they grabbed a pitchfork and a burning torch and joined it.

Most people now can see it was wrong. They can see it did immense harm. Very few try and forgive it. That’s why you got the reaction you did.

[272BHP]

I am reminded of some experts who advised that saying goodbye to dying loved ones was unsafe and prohibited whilst also claiming that BLM protests and gatherings at the time was a fundamental right.

That particular kind of evil will never be forgotten.

[mko9]

SHOULD never be forgotten. Probably already has been, though. Haven't you heard? It is all over, we should move on.

[zarjaz1991]

cliffe_mafia said:

Not sure what else you could call them other than sheep. Identical scenario happens again and even knowing what we do now they'd blindly go along with the lockdown, mask, jab, mandate, passport, furlough nonsense all over again and beg for more, harder and longer. If it saves one life, eh?

If they try it again, they should do so without furlough or any form of free money.

See how long people are keen on "lockdowns to keep us all safe" when it doesn't involve being paid near-full salary to sit at home in the sunshine drinking wine.

[bodhi]

Elysium said:

B'stard Child said:

bodhi said:

Interesting read from Martin Kulldorff, who sadly appears to have been let go from his position at Harvard for his position on Vaccine Mandates.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramp...

Struggled to disagree with what he said at the time, now two years later it seems even more unforgivable.....

Very good article - thanks for sharing

I agree. In fact I think this article will become an important part of the historical record because it shines a bright light on the hysteria surrounding our response to COVID.

Kulldorff is the opposite of an anti-vaxxer. He is one of the USAs leading experts in vaccine safety. In the article he is describing the insanity of an unarguable expert being bullied into saying things he knows to be incorrect, by a baying mob that is clearly caught up in mass hysteria, and wilfully ignorant to basic facts.

This is the tweet that he says got him fired as a Harvard professor:

Martin Kulldorff said:

Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.

This is a statement that is self evidently true. In fact it reflects where the UK ended up on recommendations for COVID vaccines. The problem for Kulldorff is that, at the time he said this, all of the Ivy League Universities were mandating vaccines for young healthy students. They continued this long after it became clear that Kulldorff was right. In fact they only ended it in the last few weeks. They required young healthy students to take repeat boosters knowing that these had no real impact on the transmission of COVID disease and that the people being forced to take them gained little or no benefit.

In that context, his mischievous attempt to claim a religious exemption rings incredibly true:

Martin Kulldorff said:

Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination.

For me the main thing the article highlighted was just how unscientific some of the advice and guidance given during the pandemic was. Things like:

- Natural immunity doesn't exist and is a conspiracy theory (yes articles at the time did say that) - even though it's been understood for thousands of years and forms the basis of how vaccines work.

- Everyone was at risk from COVID - no, we understood from fairly early on who was at risk.

- And leading on from that - everyone must be vaccinated. No, the vaccines should have been focused on those at risk and not wasted on people who'd already had COVID.

[isaldiri]

Challo said:

<snipped for relevant bits>
I suspect a lot of people were following guidance / rules because they came from the government and experts. It was an unknown virus, most people knew fk all about, so in those scenarios you look to leaders to provide information and help you get through.

Given the fact things were evolving all the time, new information every day, lots of misinformation via social media.

That I agree was fair enough and entirely understandable. What however was somewhat less obvious was the zeal and delight at which some people took in insulting and attacking anyone who might have been pointing out glaring discrepancies in what said leaders were proclaiming as 'information' and also insisting that 'the rules' were no biggie and it was a sign of moral failure for anyone who might disagree with them. They also tried their best to group those who were (quite reasonably imo) pointing out officials were at best misrepresenting and at worst lying about quite a few claimed 'facts' in order to justify some of those rules that even you agree were stupid earlier with the most extreme fringe views as being Icke supporting covid denying anti vaxxers.

You might not have but plenty of people on 'your' side certainly did - did you ever think some of that being thrown around was in any way unreasonable and should not have happened even at the time or do you think that was entirely fair for people to have done so because the 'experts' knew best and should not have been questioned for the greater good?

[Roderick Spode]

James6112 said:

Sure, we believe you
One for the conspiracy thread.

Another valued and valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion. Thank goodness you're here! I mean, where would we be without such pearls of wisdom? Clearly to refute my account of an online meeting as inaccurate you must have been there - Carol, is that you? I wondered why you refused to switch on your camera - it's obvious, you were a bloke called James. It all makes sense now. Anyway, scuttle back to the snarky thread and tell them the thickos are making stuff up again, there's a good chap.

Elysium said:

Challo said:

Good little sheep? You’re coming across quite condescending.

You need to understand that people are, quite rightly, angry about lockdowns and the absurd rules that underpinned them.

There is a lot of difference between rules and guidance. Guidance would have allowed people to use their judgement. Rules resulted in people being arrested because they sat on a bench or went for a walk with a friend. They resulted in people being kept apart from dying relatives and unable to attend the funerals of people they loved.

This. I may come across as condescending largely because I have less than zero respect for those who not only blindly followed all the increasingly crazy rules and diktats made up on the hoof, but tried their hardest to have those who refused to comply punished and vilified. The example above of people refused the comfort of loved ones at a funeral was particularly egregious - I'm reminded of an elderly widow grieving her deceased husband, and her sons being forcibly restrained when they tried to comfort her, with threats of arrest - at their father's funeral. If you think that was a correct and proportionate response then I'm afraid you are beneath contempt. A more public version of that was Her Majesty the Queen seated all alone and isolated from her family at the funeral of The Duke of Edinburgh in Windsor Abbey. That image alone neatly sums up the insanity of the rules, and the performative pantomime of those who willingly went along with them.

The example of two ladies fined for drinking a coffee on a bench in the country miles from anyone and anything was a result of confusion regarding rules versus guidance, and a particularly authoritarian copper overstepping their remit massively. Some officers of the law relished and embraced their newly found power, and some forces implemented 'drone patrols' to spy on the public undertaking their state-permitted one hour per day of external exercise, with anyone under suspicion stopped and questioned to see if they were more than 5 miles from their residence. Clever virus. Other forces encouraged citizens dobbing in their neighbours for non-compliance, which encouraged an army of nosey curtain twitchers with nothing better to do than excitedly get on the phone and tell PC Plod that Mrs Smith at 27 had more than six people round for tea. All in the name of a virus that for most people was a complete nothingburger, and for which the measures were completely ineffective in any case.

[jameswills]

272BHP said:

I am reminded of some experts who advised that saying goodbye to dying loved ones was unsafe and prohibited whilst also claiming that BLM protests and gatherings at the time was a fundamental right.

That particular kind of evil will never be forgotten.

At the moment the government seem to love changing the meanings of words, I’d like to suggest removing the word “expert” from existence.

[cliffe_mafia]

bodhi said:

Elysium said:

B'stard Child said:

bodhi said:

Interesting read from Martin Kulldorff, who sadly appears to have been let go from his position at Harvard for his position on Vaccine Mandates.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramp...

Struggled to disagree with what he said at the time, now two years later it seems even more unforgivable.....

Very good article - thanks for sharing

I agree. In fact I think this article will become an important part of the historical record because it shines a bright light on the hysteria surrounding our response to COVID.

Kulldorff is the opposite of an anti-vaxxer. He is one of the USAs leading experts in vaccine safety. In the article he is describing the insanity of an unarguable expert being bullied into saying things he knows to be incorrect, by a baying mob that is clearly caught up in mass hysteria, and wilfully ignorant to basic facts.

This is the tweet that he says got him fired as a Harvard professor:

Martin Kulldorff said:

Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.

This is a statement that is self evidently true. In fact it reflects where the UK ended up on recommendations for COVID vaccines. The problem for Kulldorff is that, at the time he said this, all of the Ivy League Universities were mandating vaccines for young healthy students. They continued this long after it became clear that Kulldorff was right. In fact they only ended it in the last few weeks. They required young healthy students to take repeat boosters knowing that these had no real impact on the transmission of COVID disease and that the people being forced to take them gained little or no benefit.

In that context, his mischievous attempt to claim a religious exemption rings incredibly true:

Martin Kulldorff said:

Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination.

For me the main thing the article highlighted was just how unscientific some of the advice and guidance given during the pandemic was. Things like:

- Natural immunity doesn't exist and is a conspiracy theory (yes articles at the time did say that) - even though it's been understood for thousands of years and forms the basis of how vaccines work.

- Everyone was at risk from COVID - no, we understood from fairly early on who was at risk.

- And leading on from that - everyone must be vaccinated. No, the vaccines should have been focused on those at risk and not wasted on people who'd already had COVID.

Most worryingly the only lessons learned have been used to up the levers of censorship and cancelling for next time around. All of the major players have brought in/are bringing in new legislation to stifle debate and truth.
Anyone speaking out (spreading misinformation) will be deplatformed, fired or even in prison, even if it turns out they were speaking the truth at a later date.