Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 17:23:38 GMT
Yeah, well, maybe. Covid seems to have killed or been involved in the deaths of less than 1 in a thousand people in the world. The pandemic in 1920 killed 7 times more people of a population that was about a quarter of what it is now. Therefore it was about 28 times more lethal and mostly killed young people, not the old. 1920 was a really nasty pandemic. Covid was not, hence partygate and MPs with Covid on trains, exceptions for government and essential workers kids to go to school. Oh, and the use of psy-ops to tell us how deadly it all was and frighten us to stay indoors. Hindsight is so reassuring. No one knew just how devastating the Covid pandemic would turn out to be, all people had to go on was the devastating affects of previous pandemics. You mean like the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009? It was pretty serious, but what kept it in perspective was the lack of a massive government over-reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 24, 2023 17:43:52 GMT
Nope. They had access to the opinions of covid experts and concluded that the disease was not enough of a threat to themselves so that they had to follow the instructions that they themselves compelled others to follow. It was all in the post that you replied to but you decided to ignore this and misrepresent the post you replied to . You regularly try to use ‘ opinions’ to refute a point . You rarely succeed. "they concluded that the disease was not enough of a threat to themselves so that they had to follow the instructions that they themselves compelled others to follow". Is that what they actually said, or is that just the assumptions made by people like yourself? Or are you just taking the piss? Both Labour and Conservative politicians and officials must had made a decision whether to gather close to each other or not. They were all privy to COVID expert advice . THEREFORE …they concluded that the disease was not enough of a threat to themselves so that they had to follow the instructions that they themselves compelled others to follow". What part of this are you struggling with? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 24, 2023 18:55:48 GMT
"they concluded that the disease was not enough of a threat to themselves so that they had to follow the instructions that they themselves compelled others to follow". Is that what they actually said, or is that just the assumptions made by people like yourself? Or are you just taking the piss? Both Labour and Conservative politicians and officials must had made a decision whether to gather close to each other or not. They were all privy to COVID expert advice . THEREFORE …they concluded that the disease was not enough of a threat to themselves so that they had to follow the instructions that they themselves compelled others to follow". What part of this are you struggling with? Not struggling even though part of your post makes assumptions about instances that you were not privy to, and the fact that you are quite prepared to make assumptions of your own, makes your post worthless. People obviously feel safer if they are not in a Covid hot spot. BUT it only takes one to unknowingly be a carrier and there is no way of knowing if or who until it is too late. So some degree of care should be taken in any gathering, and some distances will be kept. The high death rate from Covid means that people who are involved in gatherings have to be mindful of all possibilities. The above clarity shouldn't really need to be explained, but I can see that you are struggling. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 24, 2023 19:05:49 GMT
Hindsight is so reassuring. No one knew just how devastating the Covid pandemic would turn out to be, all people had to go on was the devastating affects of previous pandemics. You mean like the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009? It was pretty serious, but what kept it in perspective was the lack of a massive government over-reaction. I was referring to Pandemics amongst humans. Or certain practices brought in for dealing with such after earlier outbreaks. Do you have a example "of a massive government over-reaction"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 19:10:11 GMT
You mean like the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009? It was pretty serious, but what kept it in perspective was the lack of a massive government over-reaction. Or certain practices brought in for dealing with such after earlier outbreaks. Do you have a example "of a massive government over-reaction"? Yes. Lockdowns, 2 metre rule, rule of six, forcing staff to be jabbed or lose their jobs. How many would you like? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 24, 2023 19:10:51 GMT
Both Labour and Conservative politicians and officials must had made a decision whether to gather close to each other or not. They were all privy to COVID expert advice . THEREFORE …they concluded that the disease was not enough of a threat to themselves so that they had to follow the instructions that they themselves compelled others to follow". What part of this are you struggling with? Not struggling even though part of your post makes assumptions about instances that you were not privy to, and the fact that you are quite prepared to make assumptions of your own, makes your post worthless. People obviously feel safer if they are not in a Covid hot spot. BUT it only takes one to unknowingly be a carrier and there is no way of knowing if or who until it is too late. So some degree of care should be taken in any gathering, and some distances will be kept. The high death rate from Covid means that people who are involved in gatherings have to be mindful of all possibilities. The above clarity shouldn't really need to be explained, but I can see that you are struggling. Nope. High ranking Politicians would have been privy to covid experts opinions. That’s not assumption. Do you really think that the prime minister was ignorant of expert opinion regarding COVID? Do you think that the health secretary was ignorant of expert opinion ? Do you think that the politicians and government officials that formulated government guidelines were ignorant of expert opinion regarding COVID ? Despite this government officials and politicians disregarded the rules that they forced the public to follow…when they felt like it.. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that they concluded that the disease was not enough if a threat to them so that they had to follow them . This isn’t an assumption, it’s a logical conclusion . A fact is that you confuse assumptions with obvious conclusions . The rest of your post is waffle followed by projection and mirroring . Boring and predictable tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 24, 2023 19:13:40 GMT
Or certain practices brought in for dealing with such after earlier outbreaks. Do you have a example "of a massive government over-reaction"? Yes. Lockdowns, 2 metre rule, rule of six, forcing staff to be jabbed or lose their jobs. How many would you like? My question was about swine flu, you are now confusing Swine flue with Covid. Other than that I am not interested in your opinions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 19:16:00 GMT
Yes. Lockdowns, 2 metre rule, rule of six, forcing staff to be jabbed or lose their jobs. How many would you like? My question was about swine flu, you are now confusing Swine flue with Covid. Other than that I am not interested in your opinions. That's rather rude considering you did ask and obviously misread my reply. I'm confusing nothing with nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 24, 2023 19:36:27 GMT
Not struggling even though part of your post makes assumptions about instances that you were not privy to, and the fact that you are quite prepared to make assumptions of your own, makes your post worthless. People obviously feel safer if they are not in a Covid hot spot. BUT it only takes one to unknowingly be a carrier and there is no way of knowing if or who until it is too late. So some degree of care should be taken in any gathering, and some distances will be kept. The high death rate from Covid means that people who are involved in gatherings have to be mindful of all possibilities. The above clarity shouldn't really need to be explained, but I can see that you are struggling. Nope. High ranking Politicians would have been privy to covid experts opinions. That’s not assumption. Do you really think that the prime minister was ignorant of expert opinion regarding COVID? Do you think that the health secretary was ignorant of expert opinion ? Do you think that the politicians and government officials that formulated government guidelines were ignorant of expert opinion regarding COVID ? Despite this government officials and politicians disregarded the rules that they forced the public to follow…when they felt like it.. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that they concluded that the disease was not enough if a threat to them so that they had to follow them . This isn’t an assumption, it’s a logical conclusion . A fact is that you confuse assumptions with obvious conclusions . The rest of your post is waffle followed by projection and mirroring . Boring and predictable tbh. 1. I never said it was. 2. Of course not. 3. Ditto. 4. That the TORIES forced the public to follow. It doesn't take a genius to work out that those partying didn't feel threatened, but then neither did I, but I was still aware that hundreds then thousands were dying from Covid. And that it was the responsibility of everyone to avoid spreading the disease. And that it was the responsibility of the government to lead the way. One lot were at the end of a very busy day that ended late, after they would have normally had their tea. The Other lot just pleased themselves as they chose to party. Two VERY different situations. It is a contrived conclusion, clearly an assumption that is designed to avoid the obvious fact that the government reneged upon its duty to set an example for the necessary care that people needed to take in order to reduce the spread of Covid. Your last line just makes you look a fool. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 24, 2023 19:39:39 GMT
My question was about swine flu, you are now confusing Swine flue with Covid. Other than that I am not interested in your opinions. That's rather rude considering you did ask and obviously misread my reply. I'm confusing nothing with nothing. I think you took my question out of context. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 24, 2023 20:28:05 GMT
Nope. High ranking Politicians would have been privy to covid experts opinions. That’s not assumption. Do you really think that the prime minister was ignorant of expert opinion regarding COVID? Do you think that the health secretary was ignorant of expert opinion ? Do you think that the politicians and government officials that formulated government guidelines were ignorant of expert opinion regarding COVID ? Despite this government officials and politicians disregarded the rules that they forced the public to follow…when they felt like it.. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that they concluded that the disease was not enough if a threat to them so that they had to follow them . This isn’t an assumption, it’s a logical conclusion . A fact is that you confuse assumptions with obvious conclusions . The rest of your post is waffle followed by projection and mirroring . Boring and predictable tbh. 1. I never said it was. 2. Of course not. 3. Ditto. 4. That the TORIES forced the public to follow. It doesn't take a genius to work out that those partying didn't feel threatened, but then neither did I, but I was still aware that hundreds then thousands were dying from Covid. And that it was the responsibility of everyone to avoid spreading the disease. And that it was the responsibility of the government to lead the way. One lot were at the end of a very busy day that ended late, after they would have normally had their tea. The Other lot just pleased themselves as they chose to party. Two VERY different situations. It is a contrived conclusion, clearly an assumption that is designed to avoid the obvious fact that the government reneged upon its duty to set an example for the necessary care that people needed to take in order to reduce the spread of Covid. Your last line just makes you look a fool. Nope . It was a logical inference. A busy day and a late tea never justified Starmer and co ignoring COVID experts advice . That is a pathetic excuse. What might explain Starmer( and Johnson) ignoring COVID experts advice is that he thought that he was not in danger if he didn’t . You cant have it both ways . My last line pointed out your projection , just as my last line points out your projection a second time . |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2023 20:53:14 GMT
My 6 year old healthy grandson was made to have the jab by his father, despite having actually had Covid months earlier. Some people were taken in by the jab sales people saying their jab was better than natural immunity after infection. I thought it was outrageous in the extreme. It wasn't the jab sales people it was a peer reviewed CDC study from proper analysis of facts. David Icke was not invited. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w Post infection immunity can be limited to just the variant of the infection, the vaccines were designed to attack features common to multiple variants. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 25, 2023 5:51:07 GMT
Yes. Lockdowns, 2 metre rule, rule of six, forcing staff to be jabbed or lose their jobs. How many would you like? My question was about swine flu, you are now confusing Swine flue with Covid. Other than that I am not interested in your opinions. Well not when you get an answer that you have no answer for. Hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 25, 2023 9:25:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 25, 2023 10:20:14 GMT
Not even that. How sick to be posting about each and every (as yet) unexplained death you hear about to made dubious insinuations about vaccines. |
|
