Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes, it is, but one repeated across Europe. That was one of my points.

My grandad was in two homes towards the end of his life. One, which looked fabulous from the outside was taken over by corporate owners who cared only for profit. We turned up two weeks later to find him being fed a tiny portion of mash by a 16 year old idiot for his lunch. Very quickly the authorities were alerted by worried relatives but, before we moved him, we were called in to a meeting with a power bitch in a lovely suit who spent 20 minutes trying to bully us into keeping him there.

He was moved within three days to a lovely place in West Worthing. The staff were older, knowledgeable and caring. When he finally went I spent 30 minutes just unloading my grief on to a really nice Irish male nurse, who granddad had bonded with, who must have had better things to do.

They're not all the same.

Mate, I know they're not all the same. And yes, across Europe. We are talking about averages here, though. On average the chance of having an undertrained person living in cramped overcrowded conditions with no social distancing coming in and out, infecting and spreading, in this vulnerable population is far too high, explaining the current data set. On average a care home is more dangerous than other places, and more dangerous than it should be. Still. The fact that it is allegedly entirely responsible for our recalcitrant high number of cases is a national scandal. That doesn't mean there are no decent care homes any more than there are no nice South Africans.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Also, verging on an International scandal? Data was already available by mid-Feb showing the danger to the elderly ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51540981... yet across Europe and further afield, deaths in care homes make up a significant proportion of the Coronavirus deaths. One further point about the UK I haven't seen mentioned, the Scottish government are responsible for their healthcare/social care system, Welsh government responsible for their healthcare/social care yet none of them seemed to complain about HMgov measures or act differently where they could to make their care homes more secure.

Quite, a collective global gormlessness.

That said, just because someone else is a dimbot is no excuse. It was a British epidemiologist who identified the link between smoking and cancer, and it was a shared global stupidity that meant it took decades before any action was taken, but in the UK, or in England, the English government either leads or follows, and it decided to not lead on smoking and cancer for decades. It seems that when it comes to care homes and covid, once again everyone has been following.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yes, it is, but one repeated across Europe. That was one of my points.

My grandad was in two homes towards the end of his life. One, which looked fabulous from the outside was taken over by corporate owners who cared only for profit. We turned up two weeks later to find him being fed a tiny portion of mash by a 16 year old idiot for his lunch. Very quickly the authorities were alerted by worried relatives but, before we moved him, we were called in to a meeting with a power bitch in a lovely suit who spent 20 minutes trying to bully us into keeping him there.

He was moved within three days to a lovely place in West Worthing. The staff were older, knowledgeable and caring. When he finally went I spent 30 minutes just unloading my grief on to a really nice Irish male nurse, who granddad had bonded with, who must have had better things to do.

They're not all the same.[/QUOTE]

Aye same experience ..my MUm died in one a year to the day of her arrival....the staff/management were brilliant...people are too quick to tar everyone with the same brush

 

[Machiavelli]

Brazil could be devastated by this virus, they are led by an imbecile and then healthcare is poor, 22k new cases in the last 2 days.

Agreed, and in stark contrast to Argentina, who moved early and swiftly to introduce the lockdown -- and I think these two countries are valid to contrast with one another. All those that preach about herd immunity like [MENTION=30583]RossyG[/MENTION] might want to focus on that example too, which is probably more instructive than Sweden versus other Scandi comparisons.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes I get it, you who blindly believe in the big business lobby are very intelligent and superior etc since that's what it says in the newspaper headline beneath "man destroys man".

You're losing it, with your righteous preaching

 

[Swansman]

That's my whole point. I don't 'blindly believe' anything. You, on the other hand, blindly believe anybody who contradicts people who you think people like me blindly believe. I don't engage with that nonsense any more than I get involved in discussions about whose religion is correct. Call me back when you have some actual evidence that, for example, 5G caused Covid-19. In the meantime I'll accept that yes, yes, you could be right.

This could go on forever. It already has. People have been debating the potential problems/potential lack of problems with microwaves, radio waves, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation for almost 200 years. Scientists are saying different things. Courts looking at evidence for and against are saying different things. The debate has always been infected where those who believe there could be problems saying "****ing normies, you believe anything media tell you" and those who believe there probably are no problems "****ing tinfoilers, you probably believe the world is flat and that there was no WW2" etc.

We'll never know. Recent problems of the earth such as the mass-death of insects, increases in neurological diseases or galloping rates of infertility could always be attributed to "something else". Likewise a lack of problems could also be attributed to "something else".

Of course, at some point there could be a "truth" established by some"type of truth ministry". However not even then anyone could be certain: the problems with dogmatic perspectives on truth is that where there is truth, there is also lies.

You're losing it, with your righteous preaching

It was not my best set of words but to my defense I have no memory that I wrote them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Aye same experience ..my MUm died in one a year to the day of her arrival....the staff/management were brilliant...people are too quick to tar everyone with the same brush[/QUOTE]

Who is tarring everybody with the same brush? Did anyone say all care homes are the same? If someone else did, fair enough. My point was simply that it is being said that in the UK the stubborn numbers of new cases that we continue to see is down to care homes. Just because you can name some care homes where of course there were no deaths because they immediately acted to social distance or, failing hat, the staff are nice, doesn't negate the point.

I remember the arguments that there was no need to do anything about football hooliganism because not all football fans are hooligans. It simply isn't an argument. The fact that what was done was in many respects spiteful and counterproductive, ultimately leading to Hillsborough, is a separate issue.

I repeat, allowing so many people to die in care homes is a national scandal. The fact that it has happened in other countries doesn't make it OK. And the fact that plenty of care homes have brilliant staff doesn't make it OK. That fact that it is still happening is inexcusable.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was not my best set of words but to my defense I have no memory that I wrote them.

I agree with the first clause of your sentence but, as to the second, I have literally no idea what you're on about. I hope that means my comment in my previous post is becoming more accurate.

 

[Swansman]

I agree with the first clause of your sentence but, as to the second, I have literally no idea what you're on about. I hope that means my comment in my previous post is becoming more accurate.

What I mean is that I was drunk like... something very drunk. Came home, apparently checked in here and wrote that sentence and just woke up an hour ago fully dressed and covered in what I wish to be milk..

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This could go on forever. It already has. People have been debating the potential problems/potential lack of problems with microwaves, radio waves, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation for almost 200 years. Scientists are saying different things. Courts looking at evidence for and against are saying different things. The debate has always been infected where those who believe there could be problems saying "****ing normies, you believe anything media tell you" and those who believe there probably are no problems "****ing tinfoilers, you probably believe the world is flat and that there was no WW2" etc.

We'll never know. Recent problems of the earth such as the mass-death of insects, increases in neurological diseases or galloping rates of infertility could always be attributed to "something else". Likewise a lack of problems could also be attributed to "something else".

Of course, at some point there could be a "truth" established by some"type of truth ministry". However not even then anyone could be certain: the problems with dogmatic perspectives on truth is that where there is truth, there is also lies.



It was not my best set of words but to my defense I have no memory that I wrote them.

People have been debating the health effects of 5G for 200 years? I know that society is purported to be sophisticated and advanced in Sweden, but that is seriously impressive.

As for 'scientists are saying different things'.....no they aren't. A scientist (and I am one) operates by raising a hypothesis. The basis for the hypothesis may be strong or weak. It doesn't matter. What does matter is the application of the scientific method - the construction of experiments to test the hypothesis. This involves making predictions that flow logically from the hypothesis and testing them.

Scientists disagree when they are asked to speculate on the truth when there is insufficient evidence. The evidence is insufficient normally because experiments have not been conducted. The reason for this is normally that people just don't give a shit. Sometimes the experiments simply can't be done. This has nothing to do with science. This is journalism. It is the process of creaing stories that can be sold to the public.

Charlatans like David Icke like to go into areas where there is insufficient evidence, and where they can float a 'hypothesis' that can't easily be tested (if at all) and which, if true, has mind blowing consequences. And people enjoy being tittilated. Ghosts, UFOs, secret societies....And the narrative becomes that more delicious when the charlatan invokes cover ups, disinformation and conspiracy. The best wheezes are those that are never going to lead to an examination of the facts or the establishment of truth.

The same lines of 'reasoning' were pursued by militant antivivisectionists like Ronnie Lee in the 80s. The classic argument was that if a scientist can't prove that his experiment will lead to a new drug then the experiment is immoral and should not be done. Then all the antivivs give themselves a warm and rightous congratulatory hug, and then make a car bomb that puts nails into a toddler's body (this happened).

I don't really know why I'm bothering to deal so gently with your ****wittery. Maybe I'm just killing a bit of time while the laundry cycle completes. It is clear that when someone has acquired your sort of belief system, which is both arrogant and narrow minded (ironically given that I imagine you think you have the more open-minded outlook), there is no way to go. In science I have my mind changed regularly. That's because I am trained to not become emotionally attached to my hypotheses. Have you ever changed your mind about your beliefs, I wonder?

As I said, maybe 5G is unsafe, but I doubt it. I haven't bothered reading any epidemiology after it was explained to me what the frequencies are and what we know about their effects on living tissue, factored with my life experience that tells me nobody invents disruptive technology to injure people (they do it to make money so it had better work, and safely), and when mistakes are made there is hell to pay (in my area, Cox-2 inhibitors, terfenadine, opioids, - all of which have ****ed over their vendors or have resulted in massive changes to safety testing). Why upscale a communications method without safety testing it, let alone deliberately suppress evidence of danger?

As for 'we'll never know'.....yes we will....that's what humans do - ask questions and find answers

 

[Guinness Boy]

People have been debating the health effects of 5G for 200 years? I know that society is purported to be sophisticated and advanced in Sweden, but that is seriously impressive.

As for 'scientists are saying different things'.....no they aren't. A scientist (and I am one) operates by raising a hypothesis. The basis for the hypothesis may be strong or weak. It doesn't matter. What does matter is the application of the scientific method - the construction of experiments to test the hypothesis. This involves making predictions that flow logically from the hypothesis and testing them.

Scientists disagree when they are asked to speculate on the truth when there is insufficient evidence. The evidence is insufficient normally because experiments have not been conducted. The reason for this is normally that people just don't give a shit. Sometimes the experiments simply can't be done. This has nothing to do with science. This is journalism. It is the process of creaing stories that can be sold to the public.

Charlatans like David Icke like to go into areas where there is insufficient evidence, and where they can float a 'hypothesis' that can't easily be tested (if at all) and which, if true, has mind blowing consequences. And people enjoy being tittilated. Ghosts, UFOs, secret societies....And the narrative becomes that more delicious when the charlatan invokes cover ups, disinformation and conspiracy. The best wheezes are those that are never going to lead to an examination of the facts or the establishment of truth.

The same lines of 'reasoning' were pursued by militant antivivisectionists like Ronnie Lee in the 80s. The classic argument was that if a scientist can't prove that his experiment will lead to a new drug then the experiment is immoral and should not be done. Then all the antivivs give themselves a warm and rightous congratulatory hug, and then make a car bomb that puts nails into a toddler's body (this happened).

I don't really know why I'm bothering to deal so gently with your ****wittery. Maybe I'm just killing a bit of time while the laundry cycle completes. It is clear that when someone has acquired your sort of belief system, which is both arrogant and narrow minded (ironically given that I imagine you think you have the more open-minded outlook), there is no way to go. In science I have my mind changed regularly. That's because I am trained to not become emotionally attached to my hypotheses. Have you ever changed your mind about your beliefs, I wonder?

As I said, maybe 5G is unsafe, but I doubt it. I haven't bothered reading any epidemiology after it was explained to me what the frequencies are and what we know about their effects on living tissue, factored with my life experience that tells me nobody invents disruptive technology to injure people (they do it to make money so it had better work, and safely), and when mistakes are made there is hell to pay (in my area, Cox-2 inhibitors, terfenadine, opioids, - all of which have ****ed over their vendors or have resulted in massive changes to safety testing). Why upscale a communications method without safety testing it, let alone deliberately suppress evidence of danger?

As for 'we'll never know'.....yes we will....that's what humans do - ask questions and find answers

That may just be the post of 2020. Bravo sir. I'd give you five thumbs up if I could.

You're not going to beat that today so I'd get on the vin rouge and Barnsley Chops early doors

 

[LamieRobertson]

Aye same experience ..my MUm died in one a year to the day of her arrival....the staff/management were brilliant...people are too quick to tar everyone with the same brush

Who is tarring everybody with the same brush? Did anyone say all care homes are the same? If someone else did, fair enough. My point was simply that it is being said that in the UK the stubborn numbers of new cases that we continue to see is down to care homes. Just because you can name some care homes where of course there were no deaths because they immediately acted to social distance or, failing hat, the staff are nice, doesn't negate the point.

I remember the arguments that there was no need to do anything about football hooliganism because not all football fans are hooligans. It simply isn't an argument. The fact that what was done was in many respects spiteful and counterproductive, ultimately leading to Hillsborough, is a separate issue.

I repeat, allowing so many people to die in care homes is a national scandal. The fact that it has happened in other countries doesn't make it OK. And the fact that plenty of care homes have brilliant staff doesn't make it OK. That fact that it is still happening is inexcusable.[/QUOTE]






Not you Harry ..but people do ..we all do ..you know that ..pick a lot of critical threads on NSC or in the ‘world’ ..we all do to a degree ..my post related to GB’s point rather than your own..I only went with my own experience..and have kept in touch with the home despite it being seven years ago..now I need to get back to work ..and it’s feeling a tad warm

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

As for 'we'll never know'.....yes we will....that's what humans do - ask questions and find answers

Agreed. The real problem is we're asking questions about the people asking the questions.

Why?

David Icke is clearly being followed by loads of these people who keep typing Lizard jokes as their form of debate when speculating things like the Gleizwich incident ever happening again. The jokes are good, I'm not attacking them. But it's very clear that these conspiracy haters are actually being manipulated by what they think they're mocking.

David Icke, I reckon, is a professional misinformer and he's probably the best at it proven how he's got you lot all blagged into his bullshit, believeing what he's saying are the questions everyone's asking. Wrong.

He's creating a divide within a much needed debate for current times by keeping all the brainwashed BBC boys following him so they can use what he says to laugh at anyone questioning what needs to be questioned right now.

Really, it's the ones using his Lizard theory to descredit every other conspiracy theory who are David Icke's love boys. Especially as its only them keeping his theory floating around. I don't see anyone else bringing that shite up?

 

[Swansman]

People have been debating the health effects of 5G for 200 years? I know that society is purported to be sophisticated and advanced in Sweden, but that is seriously impressive.

As for 'scientists are saying different things'.....no they aren't. A scientist (and I am one) operates by raising a hypothesis. The basis for the hypothesis may be strong or weak. It doesn't matter. What does matter is the application of the scientific method - the construction of experiments to test the hypothsis. This involves making predictions that flow logically from the hypothesis and testing them.

Scientists disagree when they are asked to speculate on the truth when there is insufficient evidence. The evidence is insufficient normally because experiments have not been conducted. The reason for this is normally that people just don't give a shit. Sometimes the experiments simply can't be done. This has nothing to do with science. This is journalism. It is the process of creaing stories that can be sold to the public.

Charlatans like David Icke like to go into areas where there is insufficient evidence, and where they can float a 'hypothesis' that can't easily bet tested (if at all) and which, if true, has minf blowing consequences. And people enjoy being tittilated. Ghosts, UFOs, secret societies....And the narrative becomes that more delicious when the charlatan invokes cover ups, disinformation and conspiracy. The best wheezes are those that are never going to lead to an examination of the facts or the establishment of truth.

The same lines of 'reasoning' were pursued by militant antivivisectionists like Ronnie Lee in the 80s. The classic argument was that if a scientist can't prove that his experiment will lead to a new drug then the experiment is immoral and should not be done. Then all the antivivs give themselves a warm and rightous congratulator hug, and then make a car bomb that puts nails into a toddler's body (this happened).

I don't really know why I'm bothering to deal so gently with your ****wittery. Maybe I'm just killing a bit of time while the laundry cycle completes. It is clear that when someone has acquired your sort of belief system, which is both arrogant and narrow minded (ironically given that I imagine you think you have the more open-minded outlook), there is no way to go. In science I have my mind changed regularly. That's because I am trained to not become emotionally attached to my hypotheses. Have you ever changed your mind about your beliefs, I wonder?

As I said, maybe 5G is unsafe, but I doubt it. I haven't bothered reading any epidemiology after it was explained to me what the frequencies are and what we know about their effects on living tissue, factored with my life experience that tells me nobody invents disruptive technology to injure people (they do it to make money so it had better work, and safely), and when mistakes are made there is hell to pay (in my area, Cox-2 inhibitors, terfenadine, opioids, - all of which have ****ed over their vendors or have resulted in massive changes to safety testing). Why upscale a communications method without safety testing it, let alone deliberately suppress evidence of danger?

As for 'we'll never know'.....yes we will....that's what humans do - ask questions and find answers

1. I didnt say that people have discussed 5G for almost 200 years. Read again. What I am saying is that the same (with some variation) subjects that are discussed about 5G as was discussed with 3G or GSM or way back when telephone and power lines were built all over the world.

2. Scientists are saying different things. Whether you agree with them or not, or find that their methods are good or bad. As for the scientific method, Karl Popper to you is probably some all-knowing entity who produced a perfect model of doing things, just like Karl Marx is to the marxist. Not to me though.

3. I dont give a shit about David Icke. To me he seems like a nutjob. And someone who is very, very useful to those of you who hold "established beliefs". Its like the study that came last year: if Donald Trump calls something "fake news", people are more likely to believe that they are "real news" - regardless of the subject. Its crowd psychology. Its like a chapter out of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.

4. I don't really know why I'm bothering to deal so gently with your ****wittery. Maybe I'm just killing a bit of time while the laundry cycle completes. It is clear that when someone has acquired your sort of belief system, which is both arrogant and narrow minded (ironically given that I imagine you think you have the more open-minded outlook), there is no way to go. Through autodidactism I have my mind changed regularly. That's because I have trained myself to not become emotionally attached to my hypotheses. Have you ever changed your mind about your beliefs, I wonder?

And since you asked me a similar question: yes, plenty of times. I moved from almost "militant" atheism to agnosticism. From believing that communism would solve everything (not as controversial over here as in the UK, I would imagine) to believe more in positive effects of decentralisation. I generally dont like isms, but - if anything - I am now a believer in anarcho-primitivism. And if you just look at this thread I went from believing that a complete lockdown would be absolutely necessary to instead be quite happy with not having one.

5. "Why upscale a communications method without safety testing it, let alone deliberately suppress evidence of danger?" There is a multitide of answers to why that could be, but most of them are very far fetched for those (the majority, since both the establishment - directly - and the davidickes - indirectly - tell you there is nothing to see in it) who did not spend a considerable time investigating that rabbit hole.

 

[Albion Dan]

When there's a vaccination for Corona you can stay at the back of the queue.

Well judging by his sentiment he would want to be at the back? I’ll be there with him.

 

[RossyG]

Well judging by his sentiment he would want to be at the back? I’ll be there with him.

Same. I’d sooner let my immune system do its job.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Agreed. The real problem is we're asking questions about the people asking the questions.

Why?

David Icke is clearly being followed by loads of these people who keep typing Lizard jokes as their form of debate when speculating things like the Gleizwich incident ever happening again. The jokes are good, I'm not attacking them. But it's very clear that these conspiracy haters are actually being manipulated by what they think they're mocking.

David Icke, I reckon, is a professional misinformer and he's probably the best at it proven how he's got you lot all blagged into his bullshit, believeing what he's saying are the questions everyone's asking. Wrong.

He's creating a divide within a much needed debate for current times by keeping all the brainwashed BBC boys following him so they can use what he says to laugh at anyone questioning what needs to be questioned right now.

Really, it's the ones using his Lizard theory to descredit every other conspiracy theory who are David Icke's love boys. Especially as its only them keeping his theory floating around. I don't see anyone else bringing that shite up?

1. I didnt say that people have discussed 5G for almost 200 years. Read again. What I am saying is that the same (with some variation) subjects that are discussed about 5G as was discussed with 3G or GSM or way back when telephone and power lines were built all over the world.

2. Scientists are saying different things. Whether you agree with them or not, or find that their methods are good or bad. As for the scientific method, Karl Popper to you is probably some all-knowing entity who produced a perfect model of doing things, just like Karl Marx is to the marxist. Not to me though.

3. I dont give a shit about David Icke. To me he seems like a nutjob. And someone who is very, very useful to those of you who hold "established beliefs". Its like the study that came last year: if Donald Trump calls something "fake news", people are more likely to believe that they are "real news" - regardless of the subject. Its crowd psychology. Its like a chapter out of The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.

4. I don't really know why I'm bothering to deal so gently with your ****wittery. Maybe I'm just killing a bit of time while the laundry cycle completes. It is clear that when someone has acquired your sort of belief system, which is both arrogant and narrow minded (ironically given that I imagine you think you have the more open-minded outlook), there is no way to go. Through autodidactism I have my mind changed regularly. That's because I have trained myself to not become emotionally attached to my hypotheses. Have you ever changed your mind about your beliefs, I wonder?

And since you asked me a similar question: yes, plenty of times. I moved from almost "militant" atheism to agnosticism. From believing that communism would solve everything (not as controversial over here as in the UK, I would imagine) to believe more in positive effects of decentralisation. I generally dont like isms, but - if anything - I am now a believer in anarcho-primitivism. And if you just look at this thread I went from believing that a complete lockdown would be absolutely necessary to instead be quite happy with not having one.

5. "Why upscale a communications method without safety testing it, let alone deliberately suppress evidence of danger?" There is a multitide of answers to why that could be, but most of them are very far fetched for those (the majority, since both the establishment - directly - and the davidickes - indirectly - tell you there is nothing to see in it) who did not spend a considerable time investigating that rabbit hole.

These are all very well but neither of them has a single thing to do with coronavirus / Covid 19. Please find somewhere else to discuss them unless you can provide direct, irrefutable evidence that links what you're talking about to the thread title. Or you may find your posting rights on this thread suspended for a short while.

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

Same. I’d sooner let my immune system do its job.

Me too. Don't trust it one inch.

 

[Swansman]

These are all very well but neither of them has a single thing to do with coronavirus / Covid 19. Please find somewhere else to discuss them unless you can provide direct, irrefutable evidence that links what you're talking about to the thread title. Or you may find your posting rights on this thread suspended for a short while.

Yes ok

 

[Albion Dan]

Good analogy. There are two current worldwide epidemics, both are challenging, but unfortunately the conspiracist version isn't going to go away any time soon.

Some people are waking up to the reality of what’s going on in the world and how it’s run and some are choosing to stay asleep. The best thing about this virus is it’s increased the numbers who are questioning our systems and who control them exponentially.

Still unfortunately commonplace that those who don’t want to accept that anything other than what the bbc and other traditional media tells them choose childish derision to the above group rather than allow any of their mainstream system programming to be challenged.