More covid

McAhuna said:
If we try to step back and try be objective, it's interesting to observe how the Overton Window of debate and argument has shifted. This whole thread is a good example.

2020/21: The consensus was that people should be fined, fired or even imprisoned for breaching lockdown restrictions, or for saying 'my body, my choice' about the jab. There were calls from mainstream public figures to treat the unvaccinated like lepers, to punish them.
Even the vaccine-injured were punished, their stories censored, their support groups banned from social media.
To suggest the pandemic was fake was heresy, inviting derision at best - vilification, ostracisation, and punishment at worst.

2026: The debate is not about whether the authorities/media lied - everyone sentient accepts that they did. The debate is now about how much they lied, and why.
The debate is not whether the public purse was scammed, the debate is by how much and by who.
The debate is whether the virus even existed, or whether it was deliberately spread for nefarious purposes.
The debate is no longer over whether the unvaccinated should be imprisoned, but instead over whether leading public officials are the ones who should instead be imprisoned

Where will the debate be by 2030/31, I wonder?
Click to expand...
I watched a Gareth Icke video the other day on the falcui hearings.

Gareth made an excellent point. The cult didn't care whether people believed the "virus" came from a wet market or a lab; just that it came from somewhere. But to have the opinion it didn't actually come from anywhere. Well we can't have that.
 
Mattconrov said:
Why not debate the facts instead of saying its utterly ludicrous.

1, average age of death 84.

2, People were recorded as dying of covid if they had tested positive 28 days prior to death. That meant the statistics showed a covid death even if the person died of a heart attack or cancer. Because everyone was getting tested, that inflated the numbers ridiculously.

3. The way of testing for a positive test was with the Pcr test. The test that isn't a test, it's an Amplification tool for genetic materials.
The pcr only needed to find a fragment of the genome. This lead to many people testing positive and feeling fine.

The lockdowns caused enormous strain and suffering to many. Suicide, missed cancer diagnosis and people set adrift from their families. This affected the old more than most.

We were told by Johnson we would all lose loved ones. I lost no one and I think I've barely meet anyone who did. No one died of covid in of itself, you died with it. The final kick in the bollox towards the inevitable death from your existing illness.

It's an insult to the many who died of existing issues and labeled covid deaths that makes my blood boil.

You've provided no evidence the lockdowns saved lives. I have provided evidence how they destroyed lives.

This is just me warming up by the way. Lol

Edit

It's worth a reminder to say that we were told by the "medical experts and Johnson, 3 weeks to flatten the curve. This turned our to be well over a year. The social distancing for an airborne disease is laughable.

People putting on face nappies to buy food in restaurants but then able to take them off when eating.

People on trains allowed to not wear face nappies if they were eating. Bloody laughable if it wasn't so sad. Absolutely no science in it what so ever. A monty python sketch.

The real culprit of the story is the fake vaccine jab. I've meet so many people who claim to have been affected by that.

Unfortunately they don't seem to have a voice .
Click to expand...

I have made my position clear. We saw it all first hand 24hrs a day, seven days a week, for month after month after month.

I caught it twice myself and it was like nothing else I’ve ever had, our PM nearly died from it and globally there were more than 7.11 million confirmed COVID-19 deaths (WHO figures) whilst excess mortality suggests the true death toll is estimated between 19 million and 36 million (Wikipedia).

To say that the COVID-19 virus was a ‘scam’ is utterly ludicrous and whilst I am content to comment on the subject and my own experiences of it, I have no interest whatsoever to enter into any so called ‘debate’ about it.
 
Phil’s Barber said:
I have made my position clear. We saw it all first hand 24hrs a day, seven days a week, for month after month after month.

I caught it twice myself and it was like nothing else I’ve ever had, our PM nearly died from it and globally there were more than 7.11 million confirmed COVID-19 deaths (WHO figures) whilst excess mortality suggests the true death toll is estimated between 19 million and 36 million (Wikipedia).

To say that the COVID-19 virus was a ‘scam’ is utterly ludicrous and whilst I am content to comment on the subject and my own experiences of it, I have no interest whatsoever to enter into any so called ‘debate’ about it.
Click to expand...
I can see why. Lol
 
Teddy Eagle said:
But they didn't avoid the collateral damage; it happened.
Curious how a government widely regarded as one of the most ineffectual, even inept, in living memory suddenly became so clear headed and consistent in the face of this existential crisis.
Why consistently defend decisions taken? There is a difference between "I won't be locked down", and "We shouldn't have been locked down".
Click to expand...
Pretty much every country uniformedly followed the same script. We have useless idiots as politicians; but they ain't running the show.

Politicians get held to account when they go off script.
 
McAhuna said:
If we try to step back and try be objective, it's interesting to observe how the Overton Window of debate and argument has shifted. This whole thread is a good example.

2020/21: The consensus was that people should be fined, fired or even imprisoned for breaching lockdown restrictions, or for saying 'my body, my choice' about the jab. There were calls from mainstream public figures to treat the unvaccinated like lepers, to punish them.
Even the vaccine-injured were punished, their stories censored, their support groups banned from social media.
To suggest the pandemic was fake was heresy, inviting derision at best - vilification, ostracisation, and punishment at worst.

2026: The debate is not about whether the authorities/media lied - everyone sentient accepts that they did. The debate is now about how much they lied, and why.
The debate is not whether the public purse was scammed, the debate is by how much and by who.
The debate is whether the virus even existed, or whether it was deliberately spread for nefarious purposes.
The debate is no longer over whether the unvaccinated should be imprisoned, but instead over whether leading public officials are the ones who should instead be imprisoned

Where will the debate be by 2030/31, I wonder?
Click to expand...
There is no way you are going to be swayed that any decision made was positive from others perspective.
We didn’t need to do anything,
Relevant lives were not saved as old people had it coming anyway
Everything about lockdown was wrong
I mean a debate is about differing opinions btw. Accepting others opinions and finding merit in some capacity no matter how small.
I got told by a poster it didn’t matter that my Mrs thought she was at the end for a time so I do have a horse in the race. Do you ?
 
cryrst said:
There is no way you are going to be swayed that any decision made was positive from others perspective.
We didn’t need to do anything,
Relevant lives were not saved as old people had it coming anyway
Everything about lockdown was wrong
I mean a debate is about differing opinions btw. Accepting others opinions and finding merit in some capacity no matter how small.
I got told by a poster it didn’t matter that my Mrs thought she was at the end for a time so I do have a horse in the race. Do you ?
Click to expand...
The poster that told you that was an idiot. I'd rather sit down and have a pint with someone who disagreed with me but respected my right to air any opinion. Conversely people that share my opinion and wish harm on others can go to hell.

I heard a women talk the other day about her covid vaccine injuries. Many were ridiculing her and saying she should have listened to them. Those people are lost.

Most of us that opposed and questioned the official narrative do it out of compassion.

I think people like myself and mcahuna had a gut full of everyone else's opinions on covid during it.

Try questioning the narrative against the majority during that time. Easy street following the crowd.

Just not wearing a mask was a sign of rebellion. I loved the fight myself.

Edit.

Just re reading your post on different opinions.

I can categorically say that "revelent lives were not saved as old people had it coming anyway" is not anything that I or Mcahuna have ever said. I've never seen such an offensive remark made by anyone on this platform.

You may have been making an inference into the average age of death being 84. That fact has been stated for the following reasons.

We did not need to lockdown everyone. We certainly didn't need to lockdown schools.

Because the figure of 84 as an average is basically correct; we didn't need to insist on everyone getting an experimental procedure called the covid jab.
 
Last edited:
cryrst said:
There is no way you are going to be swayed that any decision made was positive from others perspective.
We didn’t need to do anything,
Relevant lives were not saved as old people had it coming anyway
Everything about lockdown was wrong
I mean a debate is about differing opinions btw. Accepting others opinions and finding merit in some capacity no matter how small.
I got told by a poster it didn’t matter that my Mrs thought she was at the end for a time so I do have a horse in the race. Do you ?
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you are talking about here. Lets take it bit by bit.

cryrst said:
There is no way you are going to be swayed that any decision made was positive from others perspective.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I literally said (post 309) that a few very vulnerable individuals may have benefited from lockdowns.

cryrst said:
lives were not saved as old people had it coming anyway
Click to expand...

Just a ridiculous lie. Show me where I said that - you can't.

Actually, the elderly in old people's homes suffered more than most during lockdowns. You should research the Midazolam Murders.

cryrst said:
I got told by a poster it didn’t matter that my Mrs thought she was at the end for a time so I do have a horse in the race. Do you ?
Click to expand...

No idea what you are talking about.
Someone else said something insensitive to you, so you now have weaponised offence, and therefore your opinion on Covid is worth more than other people's?? 😕
Tell me I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Everyone who lived through that time has a 'horse in the race' as you put it. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
 
McAhuna said:
Not really sure what you are talking about here. Lets take it bit by bit.



Wrong. I literally said (post 309) that a few very vulnerable individuals may have benefited from lockdowns.



Just a ridiculous lie. Show me where I said that - you can't.

Actually, the elderly in old people's homes suffered more than most during lockdowns. You should research the Midazolam Murders.



No idea what you are talking about.
Someone else said something insensitive to you, so you now have weaponised offence, and therefore your opinion on Covid is worth more than other people's?? 😕
Tell me I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Everyone who lived through that time has a 'horse in the race' as you put it. Ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Note the thumbs up, get it !
 
Teddy Eagle said:
But they didn't avoid the collateral damage; it happened.
Curious how a government widely regarded as one of the most ineffectual, even inept, in living memory suddenly became so clear headed and consistent in the face of this existential crisis.
Why consistently defend decisions taken? There is a difference between "I won't be locked down", and "We shouldn't have been locked down".
Click to expand...
Of course it happened! Collateral damage is always some thing that is regretted but happens as a consequence of a greater need. Studying how we did things will inform how to mitigate the impact as much as possible but it can never be completely avoided.

The government deferred to their scientific advisers and took advice. Those advisers, in turn, considered all the opinions within their fields and reached a consensus. That what all governments would have done, inept or not.

Those who refused to do what was asked of them are beyond the pale. They were not just selfish they were irresponsible. Those who say we shouldn’t have locked down, certainly those posting here, have never been in government nor been scientific advisers to one. So never held any responsibility for decisions of this importance. They are today’s barrack room lawyers, with an opinion about everything and knowledge about nothing.

Maybe, though I personally very much doubt it, the enquiry will conclude we should not lock down again, if similar circumstances should occur. More likely will be when, where and for how long recommendations.

So some of the barrack room lawyers might have been correct. Just as a blind man can throw a 180. Others, who disagreed, won’t be. I know where my money would go!
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course it happened! Collateral damage is always some thing that is regretted but happens as a consequence of a greater need. Studying how we did things will inform how to mitigate the impact as much as possible but it can never be completely avoided.

The government deferred to their scientific advisers and took advice. Those advisers, in turn, considered all the opinions within their fields and reached a consensus. That what all governments would have done, inept or not.

Those who refused to do what was asked of them are beyond the pale. They were not just selfish they were irresponsible. Those who say we shouldn’t have locked down, certainly those posting here, have never been in government nor been scientific advisers to one. So never held any responsibility for decisions of this importance. They are today’s barrack room lawyers, with an opinion about everything and knowledge about nothing.

Maybe, though I personally very much doubt it, the enquiry will conclude we should not lock down again, if similar circumstances should occur. More likely will be when, where and for how long recommendations.

So some of the barrack room lawyers might have been correct. Just as a blind man can throw a 180. Others, who disagreed, won’t be. I know where my money would go!
Click to expand...
As selfish as loading the next generation with hundreds of billions of debt, seeing thousands of businesses close down and children's education suffering.
I still don't understand the criticism of those questioning a decision taken six years ago. It's a different experience being confined to a large house in the country to being stuck in a small flat in a city.
 
Mattconrov said:
Even though I hold the controversial view that there was no new disease . We could have politely locked down people over a certain age. This virus wasn't affecting young people.
Click to expand...
We didn’t know that until later in the pandemic. Do you seriously think when we didn’t know we should just have ignored the risk anyway?

Mattconrov said:
I work in a place of 200 people and was considered an essential worker. We pretty much all mingled together. Masks were not asked of ( I of course refused and had a lot of fun doing that) until later in 2020 I recall at my workplace.
Click to expand...
Mask wearing in work places was never made mandatory, just recommended. So I bet you were popular. They were elsewhere though. In England, face masks were first made legally mandatory on public transport on June 15, 2020, and in shops and most indoor public spaces starting July 24, 2020. After mandates were initially lifted in July 2021, they briefly returned between November 30, 2021, and January 27, 2022, to combat the Omicron variant before ending permanently for the general public. Did you comply in public places?
Mattconrov said:
Social distancing was payed lip service.

No one I remember became seriously ill. No one died . This was not the Plague. Why if it was so deadly did I have to "risk my life" where others didn't.
Click to expand...
Have you stopped to consider that, at least partly, that was because we socially distanced and wore masks. Alongside discovering the virus wasn’t as deadly as was initially feared, for most people. Maybe if there were masks, people socially distanced and we had the NHS, we would have survived the plague better!
Mattconrov said:
The only disruption came from too many people testing with the extremely inadequate pcr test. Also the app that buzzed if you had been near a case. Because of these things, many healthy people want home and we struggled on with a vastly reduced workforce.
Click to expand...
Things were tried. Things worked. Some didn’t. We learned on the hoof. Not during lengthy field trials.
Mattconrov said:
This is almost definitely why the NHS struggled in some areas between tik tok dances.
Click to expand...
The NHS, where my wife works, were magnificent during Covid. Putting themselves at risk and under great strain in the service of everyone. Including you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top