Big D vs Twitter

[Brizzle]

This is my issue. They moved the goal posts. And the 28 days within a positive test that I keep banging on about.

However, the primary reason for my reluctance is every time I see that slippery lizard Matt Hancock grinning about the vaccine roll out, and Boris Johnson bumbling on about how great a job they're doing, my bullshit alarm goes off.

It's probably a boy who cried wolf situation. But anything they champion, I'm automatically going to assume they're up to something, and to our detriment.

I think it is possible that the government were both poor on the testing programme (and in general any strong decision making around reducing deaths, no matter what the method of counting them it) and good on the vaccine rollout. Close the borders, enforce visitors from other countries to quarantine. Fucking simple.

However, the vaccine rollout has been great (in terms of speed, coverage and order or people getting it). I was expecting a complete clusterfuck after the way the general response to Covid was handled from Day 1.

I don't like seeing 'success of vaccine programme' being used to hide the fact that tens of thousands died because of poor decisions, but the current vaccine programme has so far been excellent.

 

[Whaddapie]

That's unscientific reasoning.

And there was a change in the testing for Covid too, to reduce the amount of false positives. A problem which was known at the outset of the testing programme.

So, the adjustment of poor testing procedures in the UK (which I acknowledge not being educated about) are the reason that the numbers have all plummeted worldwide, since the vaccine came into being?

 

[Judge Jules]

I think it is possible that the government were poor on the testing programme (and in general any strong decision making around reducing deaths, no matter what the method of counting them it). Close the borders, enforce visitors from other countries to quarantine. Fucking simple.

However, the vaccine rollout has been great (in terms of speed, coverage and order or people getting it). I was expecting a complete clusterfuck after the way the general response to Covid was handled from Day 1.

I don't like seeing 'success of vaccine programme' being used to hide the fact that tens of thousands died because of poor decisions, but the current vaccine programme has so far been excellent.

Agree. I strongly suspect it's down to the Vaccine Minister, Nadim Zahawi, rather than to that poser Hancock.

 

[Rosco]

So, the adjustment of poor testing procedures in the UK (which I acknowledge not being educated about) are the reason that the numbers have all plummeted worldwide, since the vaccine came into being?

It didn't just change in the UK. It was a CDC change that was implemented by most countries in January.

And then there's all the lockdowns too

 

[Whaddapie]

It didn't just change in the UK. It was a CDC change that was implemented by most countries in January.

And then there's all the lockdowns too

So, explain how this poxy country has basically ignored the Covid guidelines and lockdown rules from day two (we pretended to do the right thing for a few weeks), but our bad numbers are down by approx. 90%+ since January, and all that's changed over here since the days of hundreds of thousands of new cases and tens of thousands of deaths every single day is the introduction of the vaccine?

 

[Halmeister]

I think it is possible that the government were both poor on the testing programme (and in general any strong decision making around reducing deaths, no matter what the method of counting them it) and good on the vaccine rollout. Close the borders, enforce visitors from other countries to quarantine. Fucking simple.

However, the vaccine rollout has been great (in terms of speed, coverage and order or people getting it). I was expecting a complete clusterfuck after the way the general response to Covid was handled from Day 1.

I don't like seeing 'success of vaccine programme' being used to hide the fact that tens of thousands died because of poor decisions, but the current vaccine programme has so far been excellent.

Yeah it could be a false equivalency on my part. These cunts might have stumbled upon the correct solution for once, but I'm just so used to not trusting anything they say that my natural inclination is to do/assume the opposite of what they're proposing.

My issue with lockdowns, though - and again, this is not backed by any science and research - if this virus is going to stay around forever, mutating and coming in waves and different seasons, is it reasonable to expect to lockdown each time there's a rise in a new variant? Again, this is crude and rudimentary of me to say, but we don't lock down at flu season... obviously there's differences, and it's more severe, but can we expect people to start legitimately saying that the government is killing people at flu season if they don't lockdown? Also, we've just seen Melbourne, I think, lockdown over 12 cases over a year after the initial outbreak. How long should we/can we legitimately keep issuing this kind of response?

I'm not anti vaccine, per se, but I just don't know anymore. We live in an age where we have cultivated a society that sees people on all sides adamantly spouting their agenda without any indication of who's right, who's wrong, who's telling the truth, who's downright lying for personal gain, and who's mental. Hence why I just switch off and come on here for all my info.

 

[Whaddapie]

Yeah it could be a false equivalency on my part. These cunts might have stumbled upon the correct solution for once, but I'm just so used to not trusting anything they say that my natural inclination is to do/assume the opposite of what they're proposing.

My issue with lockdowns, though - and again, this is not backed by any science and research - if this virus is going to stay around forever, mutating and coming in waves and different seasons, is it reasonable to expect to lockdown each time there's a rise in a new variant? Again, this is crude and rudimentary of me to say, but we don't lock down at flu season... obviously there's differences, and it's more severe, but can we expect people to start legitimately saying that the government is killing people at flu season if they don't lockdown? Also, we've just seen Melbourne, I think, lockdown over 12 cases over a year after the initial outbreak. How long should we/can we legitimately keep issuing this kind of response?

I'm not anti vaccine, per se, but I just don't know anymore. We live in an age where we have cultivated a society that sees people on all sides adamantly spouting their agenda without any indication of who's right, who's wrong, who's telling the truth, who's downright lying for personal gain, who's just plain wrong, and who's mental. Hence why I just switch off and come on here for all my info.

I get where you're coming from, mate... I get the mental fatigue of it all. But I think that in most cases, it's quite easy to tell who's right and wrong, who's lying and who's not, and who's mental.

And, if you come HERE for your info, you're not just fucked, you're proper fucked! 🙂

 

[Halmeister]

I get where you're coming from, mate... I get the mental fatigue of it all. But I think that in most cases, it's quite easy to tell who's right and wrong, who's lying and who's not, and who's mental.

And, if you come HERE for your info, you're not just fucked, you're proper fucked! 🙂

I dunno... the majority of this country trusts its current governors.

 

[Hansern]

 

[dantes]

Yeah it could be a false equivalency on my part. These cunts might have stumbled upon the correct solution for once, but I'm just so used to not trusting anything they say that my natural inclination is to do/assume the opposite of what they're proposing.

My issue with lockdowns, though - and again, this is not backed by any science and research - if this virus is going to stay around forever, mutating and coming in waves and different seasons, is it reasonable to expect to lockdown each time there's a rise in a new variant? Again, this is crude and rudimentary of me to say, but we don't lock down at flu season... obviously there's differences, and it's more severe, but can we expect people to start legitimately saying that the government is killing people at flu season if they don't lockdown? Also, we've just seen Melbourne, I think, lockdown over 12 cases over a year after the initial outbreak. How long should we/can we legitimately keep issuing this kind of response?

I'm not anti vaccine, per se, but I just don't know anymore. We live in an age where we have cultivated a society that sees people on all sides adamantly spouting their agenda without any indication of who's right, who's wrong, who's telling the truth, who's downright lying for personal gain, and who's mental. Hence why I just switch off and come on here for all my info.

The airborne infectiousness is the difference with flu. There would be several million vaccinated people who would die anyway if you let the virus pass through the world's population unabted. Not to mention the unvaccinated portion. The only true way out is to chose death or to develop a reasonably priced treatment.

 

[keniget]

but we don't lock down at flu season... obviously there's differences, and it's more severe

I think you've just answered your own question.

 

[Frogfish]

Yeah, the fact is that the blood clots were a result of the vaccine. Do you not understand that? You disagreed at the time because you misinterpreted those statistics you are still quoting. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not arguing about the percentages you keep quoting. It simply takes me less time to call you an idiot than to physically correct the flaws in your interpretation of those statistics. You can either get butthurt or your can go learn where you went wrong and do better in future.

Hahaha oh the irony of that last sentence 😀

I didn't disagree I said it wasn't proven (a statement WHO even now still agrees with). What is indisputable is that it could instigate a reaction (low platelets) that can cause embolisms in a really minute number of cases, with susceptible people (who may or may not later have had an embolism anyway, considering how common they are in the general population) and who may or may not have had an unknown comorbidity. For example certain cancers, cancer treatments, medications and autoimmune diseases can cause the condition and people unaware they have these comorbidities may then be vaccinated exacerbating or resulting in low platelets and clotting.

However, having reviewed data from 190 million AstraZeneca vaccinations, compared to the 34 million considered by EMA, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety (GACVS) issued an interim advisory that a causal relationship, while plausible, had not been confirmed. Both organisations stressed that the benefits of the vaccine in terms of preventing deaths and serious disease from COVID-19 still outweigh its risks.

Obviously the above has been researched from reputable sources (EMA etc.), which is what everyone else on here does, since none of us are experts in this field, no not even you Dantes. However, your risible claim that your brain helps you interpret these statistics better than anyone else here, is far from the reality, because your established bias is a major delusionary factor, grossly impeding any conclusion you come to (see Trump).

As for other things that have a higher risk of death than taking the AZ vaccine : Ibuprofen and Aspirin !

------

Anyway here's my favourite quote that I enjoyed reading again in response to you a quick forum search I did as a result of you waffling on about not being able to prove cause/effect, so thanks for that !

Hey Dantes are you still saying Trump isn't responsible for many many deaths in the USA with his ridiculous stance on virtually everything CV-19 related?

In the US, 53% of all adults have received at least one dose and 36% are fully vaccinated. The rate of infections and deaths have fallen by about 75% since January peaks, and much of the US has already started to reopen (stats from a few weeks ago).

Many people on here have picked apart Trump's total ineptitude from Day 1, reprising that timeline yet again, as has been done many times in this thread, isn't going to change your mind on anything. You're just waffling on as a smokescreen to cover your ass.

Denying a chain of cause and effect (initiated by Trump) and stating that it isn't possible to conclude an actual number (duh) doesn't negate the fact that Trump is ultimately responsible for many avoidable deaths, probably in the thousands.

-----------

Interesting links ;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...at-is-this-rare-syndrome-and-how-is-it-caused

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/a...very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-blood-clotting-disorder-astrazeneca-vaccine-has-been-linked

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/new...pool-professor-says-aspirin-probably-20334445

 

[dantes]

No, you said it was extremely unlikely and just a "coincidence" and quoted the stats. You denied saying this after you were proven wrong, so I quoted you saying that. Then you said see, I didn't say impossible, just extremely unlikely. Now you're back to denying it. Got it.

 

[dantes]

Denying a chain of cause and effect (initiated by Trump) and stating that it isn't possible to conclude an actual number (duh) doesn't negate the fact that Trump is ultimately responsible for many avoidable deaths, probably in the thousands.

Sure. Just imagine all of that is proven because you recited it before in a thread. Got it.

Is Trump also responsible for the rapid availability of vaccines? What was the effect on avoidable deaths of that? Less than thousands? More? You going to net that off against the other imaginary number? No? Got it. It's your imagination you can do what you like.

 

[dantes]

The entire chain of cause and effect was initiated in Wuhan. That caused every death, all the deaths. Every. Single. One. That cause was 100% the reason for every single death that has occured in every single country. You didn't want to go back that far? Got it.

 

[Mamma Mia]

The entire chain of cause and effect was initiated in Wuhan. That caused every death, all the deaths. Every. Single. One. That cause was 100% the reason for every single death that has occured in every single country. You didn't want to go back that far? Got it.

You only went that far back?

 

[dantes]

You only went that far back?

I am no use to you further back than that. If you want to go there you need to enlist the services of Rosco. I can only hazard a guess that you'd go back to Fauci, then Zuckerberg maybe, after that it is far too hazy and foggy for my mind to discern. Perhaps Bill Gates, or Hillary Clinton, can't forget his excellency Xi, and Soros? Why bother trying to untangle all of those causal chains? Killing them all in order to ensure you definitely got the responsible parties would be my favoured approach.

 

[Brizzle]

I'm not sure I ever bought that the Wuhan link was a 'conspiracy theory' but did loosely agree with the idea that for a certain time it didn't matter on the source, we just had to be totally focused on dealing with it. Now that many countries feel under control, full investigation into this needs to happen and if it can be proven that this is the leak (what are the odds of this being a coincidence?!) then sanctions need to rain down on China. 3.7 million dead.

 

[dantes]

I'm not sure I ever bought that the Wuhan link was a 'conspiracy theory' but did loosely agree with the idea that for a certain time it didn't matter on the source, we just had to be totally focused on dealing with it. Now that many countries feel under control, full investigation into this needs to happen and if it can be proven that this is the leak (what are the odds of this being a coincidence?!) then sanctions need to rain down on China. 3.7 million dead.

That certain time where it didn't matter, is precisely when the evidence we've now decided to seek had all disappeared and died in tragic accidents. The problem is the concept of "focus". It's just a stupid term that nobody thinks about, yet accepts as a reason to let something slide. Nothing to do with focus. There's billions of people on earth, we can do two things at once. We didn't. Now it's too late. But at least we all "focussed".

 

[dantes]

Anytime anyone ever tells you "let's focus on this". What they mean is "let's not focus on this other thing". The only response to that is to kill them, because they are in your way. That's just facts.

 

[Rosco]

Nobody can explain why Fauci and Zuckerberg needed each others phone numbers ....

Anyone got any ideas ?

 

[Atlas]

Nobody can explain why Fauci and Zuckerberg needed each others phone numbers ....

Anyone got any ideas ?

Cos Fauci didn't want Zucker selling his data?
And so didn't want to join FB.

 

[Brizzle]

That certain time where it didn't matter, is precisely when the evidence we've now decided to seek had all disappeared and died in tragic accidents. The problem is the concept of "focus". It's just a stupid term that nobody thinks about, yet accepts as a reason to let something slide. Nothing to do with focus. There's billions of people on earth, we can do two things at once. We didn't. Now it's too late. But at least we all "focussed".

Yeah - i get this. But there is an argument that would say that if we confirmed the source, there would been a lot of 'focus' needed from leaders on how to respond versus fighting a global pandemic.

 

[Rosco]

Cos Fauci didn't want Zucker selling his data?
And so didn't want to join FB.

And needed help with ensuring only the right stories became discussed. And the right people were heading up Facebook fact checking.

Like Fauci's buddy who helped finance the research that caused the pandemic.

 

[dantes]

Yeah - i get this. But there is an argument that would say that if we confirmed the source, there would been a lot of 'focus' needed from leaders on how to respond versus fighting a global pandemic.

But "fighting" is another word like "focus". Nobody had to "fight" the pandemic, they had to fight their own impatience and anger and frustration. When they have a reason for why they are having to do it, you can instil some national pride and stubbornness, as in look guys, china has fucked your shit up, don't let them win, follow the rules, then we win and we'll take revenge. Wartime rhetoric. Worked wonders in the past. Instead the rhetoric was a bunch of fluff, implicitly blaming people who were not to blame. Not to mention those leaders having ample time to "focus" on sending our monies to their friends. That's why the fight was lost. And I repeat, they should be killed for it.

 

[Halmeister]

A mate of mine has just been diagnosed with diabetes. He had Coronavirus a few months back and the doctors said they reckon the virus has kicked off his dormant diabetes or something.

However, what is more fucking likely, is that the fact he's been sat around, locked down for a year, ordering takeaways and doing no exercise has caused his diabetes.

I'm not sure what my point is, but there is one here. Something along the lines of them being incompetent, retarded and hyping up the virus on certain occasions. I just don't know if it's intentional for some sinister motive, they're being overcautious, or it's just humanity's natural propensity to tap into the fear.

 

[Halmeister]

I think you've just answered your own question.

That wasn't the question though. If flu still exists, I don't bloody know anymore, and next winter a few thousand people die of it, will there be calls to lockdown the country?

 

[Athens]

That wasn't the question though. If flu still exists, I don't bloody know anymore, and next winter a few thousand people die of it, will there be calls to lockdown the country?

Don't worry, flu hasn't gone anywhere.

This will all seem like a piece of piss compared to whenever something really nasty emerges, be it from the jungles that are being chopped down or something that comes out of the rapidly melting permafrost. It'll be something that's incredibly contagious but won't give you any symptoms for a few weeks. By the time the symptoms show it's too late to do anything for you and you've been walking around the place giving it to everyone. The Ebola virus kills something like 60% of the people infected with it, imagine if Covid-19 was as lethal as that?

 

[Athens]

Intensive farming practices are another goldmine for diseases. It could come from there.

 

[Halmeister]

Don't worry, flu hasn't gone anywhere.

This will all seem like a piece of piss compared to whenever something really nasty emerges, be it from the jungles that are being chopped down or something that comes out of the rapidly melting permafrost. It'll be something that's incredibly contagious but won't give you any symptoms for a few weeks. By the time the symptoms show it's too late to do anything for you and you've been walking around the place giving it to everyone. The Ebola virus kills something like 60% of the people infected with it, imagine if Covid-19 was as lethal as that?

We can only hope. We need a good culling and they've just come out and said we look safe from asteroids for the next 100 years...