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

[119]

cliffe_mafia said:

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.

Can you provide links to any current legislations that have been brought in?

[cliffe_mafia]

119 said:

cliffe_mafia said:

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.

Can you provide links to any current legislations that have been brought in?

Can you provide an opinion on the abysmal treatment of Martin Kulldorff and others who went against the covid narrative?

[Elysium]

Roderick Spode said:

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.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The idea that it is possible for anyone to put rules like this in place and apply them fairly and honourably is foolish. All of human history shows us otherwise.

We placed absolute power in the hands of people who were incapable and unworthy. We should have known better.

The performative aspects also dig deep into the human psyche. Somehow it was important for people to see the Queen facing the same burdon as the rest of us. But does anyone seriously imagine that the Royal Family continued to practice social distancing after the funeral? Is anyone that gullible?

[Elysium]

cliffe_mafia said:

119 said:

cliffe_mafia said:

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.

Can you provide links to any current legislations that have been brought in?

Can you provide an opinion on the abysmal treatment of Martin Kulldorff and others who went against the covid narrative?

The UK introduced the online safety bill and is attempting to legislate against protest. In the USA the Govt set up a 'disinformation board'. In New Zealand the Prime Minister insisted that people must trust the Govt as the only source of truth.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya had direct evidence that the Biden administration censored them. They took the Govt to court and won.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...

[isaldiri]

Elysium said:

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.

I very much doubt most people now agree it was wrong even though they can see it had done immense harm. It's still justified as 'necessary at the time' and it's 'bad people' who are blamed for breaking 'the rules' that made it necessary that restrictions were implemented. As regularly trotted out by some on PH actually.

[119]

Elysium said:

The UK introduced the online safety bill and is attempting to legislate against protest. In the USA the Govt set up a 'disinformation board'. In New Zealand the Prime Minister insisted that people must trust the Govt as the only source of truth.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya had direct evidence that the Biden administration censored them. They took the Govt to court and won.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...

Thanks but I was more interested in the UK legislation directly relating to CV19 information.

[Elysium]

119 said:

Elysium said:

The UK introduced the online safety bill and is attempting to legislate against protest. In the USA the Govt set up a 'disinformation board'. In New Zealand the Prime Minister insisted that people must trust the Govt as the only source of truth.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya had direct evidence that the Biden administration censored them. They took the Govt to court and won.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...

Thanks but I was more interested in the UK legislation directly relating to CV19 information.

And I specifically mentioned UK legislation in my response.

We know the UK Govt spied on lockdown critics:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687675/...

This is how they describe the Counter Disinformation Unit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fact-sheet-on-t...

Self appointed guardians of truth like fullfact.org campaigned for the online safety bill to specifically cover medical 'disinformation'.

https://fullfact.org/about/policy/online-safety-bi...

Big Brother Watch can explain where we have ended up:

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/five-things-yo...

[119]

Elysium said:

119 said:

Elysium said:

The UK introduced the online safety bill and is attempting to legislate against protest. In the USA the Govt set up a 'disinformation board'. In New Zealand the Prime Minister insisted that people must trust the Govt as the only source of truth.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya had direct evidence that the Biden administration censored them. They took the Govt to court and won.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...

Thanks but I was more interested in the UK legislation directly relating to CV19 information.

And I specifically mentioned UK legislation in my response.

We know the UK Govt spied on lockdown critics:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687675/...

This is how they describe the Counter Disinformation Unit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fact-sheet-on-t...

Self appointed guardians of truth like fullfact.org campaigned for the online safety bill to specifically cover medical 'disinformation'.

https://fullfact.org/about/policy/online-safety-bi...

Big Brother Watch can explain where we have ended up:

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/five-things-yo...

Thanks.


"Through the COVID-19 pandemic, this has seen the CDU counter disinformation threats that have suggested bleach is an effective way to cure COVID-19 and that 5G masts should be burned down to prevent the spread of the virus."

Can't see that as a bad thing though, although from my internet trawling over the years, i haven't seen much of this 'disinformation' like in other countries.

Thankfully, nothing to worry about IMO.

[Roderick Spode]

119 said:

Elysium said:

The UK introduced the online safety bill and is attempting to legislate against protest. In the USA the Govt set up a 'disinformation board'. In New Zealand the Prime Minister insisted that people must trust the Govt as the only source of truth.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya had direct evidence that the Biden administration censored them. They took the Govt to court and won.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...

Thanks but I was more interested in the UK legislation directly relating to CV19 information.

Literally the first response from an internet search for "Covid disinformation illegal". Have you come across the internet before Gramps?

The actual government said:

Published 30 March 2020
Specialist units across government are working at pace to combat false and misleading narratives about coronavirus, ensuring the public has the right information to protect themselves and save lives.

The Cell is engaging with social media platforms and with disinformation specialists from civil society and academia, to establish a comprehensive overview of the extent, scope and impact of disinformation related to coronavirus.

The Culture Secretary will be contacting social media companies this week to thank them for their good efforts to date, assess the progress made and discuss what other potential measures can be put in place to ensure accurate, honest information consistently reaches users of their platforms.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crac...

[jameswills]

Elysium said:

And I specifically mentioned UK legislation in my response.

We know the UK Govt spied on lockdown critics:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687675/...

This is how they describe the Counter Disinformation Unit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fact-sheet-on-t...

Self appointed guardians of truth like fullfact.org campaigned for the online safety bill to specifically cover medical 'disinformation'.

https://fullfact.org/about/policy/online-safety-bi...

Big Brother Watch can explain where we have ended up:

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/five-things-yo...

Ofcom. Government censorship under the guise of keeping people safe (heard that one haven’t we). No it’s not new, but it’s coupled very tightly with the new online safety bill.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/information...

What about the new legislation being passed to change the meaning of the word “extremism”? Quite Orwellian!

[119]

jameswills said:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/information...

What about the new legislation being passed to change the meaning of the word “extremism”? Quite Orwellian!

Do you it is a good idea to try and prevent children from seeing harmful content, which is part of what the OSB is about?

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

<snip>

We placed absolute power in the hands of people who were incapable and unworthy. We should have known better.

The performative aspects also dig deep into the human psyche. Somehow it was important for people to see the Queen facing the same burdon as the rest of us. But does anyone seriously imagine that the Royal Family continued to practice social distancing after the funeral? Is anyone that gullible?

And those that framed the "Rules/Guidance" partied away in private revealing that the concerns for all our health was grossly overstated, and they tripped on the power/position, the media aware at the time did not expose that - only later when it was "opportune" did they "expose" the activities

I don't have enough expletives to describe how I feel about

The clowns in power,

The clowns in opposition (who should have challenged the government not called for "more more more")

The scientists/medical experts whose job it was to bring calm logic and reasoned evaluation to the attention of the government.

The modellers who took the worst case parameters and assumed no intervention of even common sense and then promoted the data as fact to those making decisions

The MSM whose role is to objectively report without any bias but who lept on the "grim daily statistics" without any qualification of how many people die daily
and finally

Those in the role of running social media who bent over backwards to censure and ensure the "lies" went unchallenged and sensible discussion was quashed" and all the people hoodwinked

The celebrities who classified anyone not partaking in the vaccine program as anti-vax and promoted the idea that they should be banished from society - restricted in their movement and placed in camps where they couldn't infect the nice people who rolled up their sleeves to do the right thing.

Absolute pox on them all - they are all s and they'd do it all again without a thought.......

[r3g]

119 said:

jameswills said:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/information...

What about the new legislation being passed to change the meaning of the word “extremism”? Quite Orwellian!

Do you it is a good idea to try and prevent children from seeing harmful content, which is part of what the OSB is about?

"But think of the poor children!" is the default excuse for every piece of new draconian legislation - they're doing the exact same thing in Canada. And it works, because all the dumb hard-of-thinking types (mentioning no names) fall for it, when it's obvious to everyone with more than 2 IQ (that's about half a dozen people these days it seems) that it's got absolutely nothing to do with "protecting the poor children" but silencing and punishing anyone who dares to question the official government narrative BS.

But all the aforementioned govern-me-harder-daddy types will cheer it on.

[B'stard Child]

119 said:

jameswills said:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/information...

What about the new legislation being passed to change the meaning of the word “extremism”? Quite Orwellian!

Do you it is a good idea to try and prevent children from seeing harmful content, which is part of what the OSB is about?

Do you think it's a good thing to try and legislate without clear scope of the legislation - wishy washy terms and a stated aim but what else could it cover if applied differently

Remember 9-11 wasn't a prominent politician quoted as saying "today would be a good day to bury bad news"

[Roderick Spode]

119 said:

jameswills said:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/information...

What about the new legislation being passed to change the meaning of the word “extremism”? Quite Orwellian!

Do you it is a good idea to try and prevent children from seeing harmful content, which is part of what the OSB is about?

Ah yes. Harmful content. A nice vague nebulous concept that ultimately comes down to hurty feels, and will likely be decided on by social media AI bots.

So no - I think it's a terrible idea.

[Elysium]

119 said:

Elysium said:

119 said:

Elysium said:

The UK introduced the online safety bill and is attempting to legislate against protest. In the USA the Govt set up a 'disinformation board'. In New Zealand the Prime Minister insisted that people must trust the Govt as the only source of truth.

Kulldorff and Bhattacharya had direct evidence that the Biden administration censored them. They took the Govt to court and won.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacha...

Thanks but I was more interested in the UK legislation directly relating to CV19 information.

And I specifically mentioned UK legislation in my response.

We know the UK Govt spied on lockdown critics:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687675/...

This is how they describe the Counter Disinformation Unit:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fact-sheet-on-t...

Self appointed guardians of truth like fullfact.org campaigned for the online safety bill to specifically cover medical 'disinformation'.

https://fullfact.org/about/policy/online-safety-bi...

Big Brother Watch can explain where we have ended up:

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/five-things-yo...

Thanks.


"Through the COVID-19 pandemic, this has seen the CDU counter disinformation threats that have suggested bleach is an effective way to cure COVID-19 and that 5G masts should be burned down to prevent the spread of the virus."

Can't see that as a bad thing though, although from my internet trawling over the years, i haven't seen much of this 'disinformation' like in other countries.

Thankfully, nothing to worry about IMO.

But of course we all know that is not all that the CDU did. As the first link in the post you replied to showed.

Edited by Elysium on Thursday 14th March 14:58

[Ari]

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

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.

I very much doubt most people now agree it was wrong even though they can see it had done immense harm. It's still justified as 'necessary at the time' and it's 'bad people' who are blamed for breaking 'the rules' that made it necessary that restrictions were implemented. As regularly trotted out by some on PH actually.

Sad to say, I agree with you completely. The general public just want their chicken dippers and reality TV, they're not interested in what was done to them, or the fallout that we're all now living with. See the 'CT a bit thick' thread for the levels of openly hostile denial that so many operate at.

At best, it's 'GRRR, evil Tories' regarding things like the abysmal state the NHS has been left in, and the colossal waiting lists that shutting it down created, or high levels of inflation caused by spraying billions of pounds into the air. Never mind that Labour wanted to lock down longer and harder.

[Elysium]

Ari said:

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

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.

I very much doubt most people now agree it was wrong even though they can see it had done immense harm. It's still justified as 'necessary at the time' and it's 'bad people' who are blamed for breaking 'the rules' that made it necessary that restrictions were implemented. As regularly trotted out by some on PH actually.

Sad to say, I agree with you completely. The general public just want their chicken dippers and reality TV, they're not interested in what was done to them, or the fallout that we're all now living with. See the 'CT a bit thick' thread for the levels of openly hostile denial that so many operate at.

At best, it's 'GRRR, evil Tories' regarding things like the abysmal state the NHS has been left in, and the colossal waiting lists that shutting it down created, or high levels of inflation caused by spraying billions of pounds into the air. Never mind that Labour wanted to lock down longer and harder.

I am always more optimistic than Isaldiri on this point.

In my experience people rarely talk about lockdown. However, it is inevitable that COVID comes up from time to time.

I have yet to meet anyone that openly says we did a good thing in shutting down society. Despite all the nonsense about the new normal. None of them want to go back to those days. They don't defend it, or argue that is was necessary. Essentially, the underlying message is, almost universally, "lets not do that again".

I think they know it was wrong.

[Unreal]

Elysium said:

Ari said:

isaldiri said:

Elysium said:

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.

I very much doubt most people now agree it was wrong even though they can see it had done immense harm. It's still justified as 'necessary at the time' and it's 'bad people' who are blamed for breaking 'the rules' that made it necessary that restrictions were implemented. As regularly trotted out by some on PH actually.

Sad to say, I agree with you completely. The general public just want their chicken dippers and reality TV, they're not interested in what was done to them, or the fallout that we're all now living with. See the 'CT a bit thick' thread for the levels of openly hostile denial that so many operate at.

At best, it's 'GRRR, evil Tories' regarding things like the abysmal state the NHS has been left in, and the colossal waiting lists that shutting it down created, or high levels of inflation caused by spraying billions of pounds into the air. Never mind that Labour wanted to lock down longer and harder.

I am always more optimistic than Isaldiri on this point.

In my experience people rarely talk about lockdown. However, it is inevitable that COVID comes up from time to time.

I have yet to meet anyone that openly says we did a good thing in shutting down society. Despite all the nonsense about the new normal. None of them want to go back to those days. They don't defend it, or argue that is was necessary. Essentially, the underlying message is, almost universally, "lets not do that again".

I think they know it was wrong.

Opinions are skewed and plenty are in denial because we still haven't confronted the reality of the fallout, from the health care crisis to the £400 billion black hole. All aided and abetted by government and opposition, who as others have said, acted as one.

Wouldn't it be great to see a new tax applied to everyone who was alive during the pandemic, extra applied to anyone who was furloughed or received any grants. Let's means test it from zero to £500K per person. It would be nothing to the likes of Rod Stewart and Esther Rantzen and protect the poor like Katie Price. It would surely be worth doing because it was necessary to do all those lockdowny vaxxy things and spend all that money. Wasn't it? You don't like the idea - how else should it be paid for then? What's £400BN between 68M people? Just remember it saved your life. A small price to pay.

[BabySharkDD]

jameswills said:

They saw what they wanted to see, whether it was a push or pull reaction, it was well known they did a pandemic planning the year before as mentioned in that article and became fixated on Disease X. Any sniffle coming up after that and they were primed to jump at it and all be war heroes for real. Again, I am not presuming any push or pull event, I’d probably err on my theory it was all hysteria. That article backs that up for me. Whether China or another agent instigated that knowing what it would do is another thing entirely.

What concerns me the most is that the USA (and others) make use of bio labs in China. I thought China was supposed to be the big bad wolf? Yet here we are with Western governments and agencies happily sending sensitive work there.