My daughter just pretends to scan the code when she goes into a restaurant or pub and she works for the NHS.
Apparently all the staff she works with think it's a pile of old cunt.
My daughter just pretends to scan the code when she goes into a restaurant or pub and she works for the NHS.
Heard similar to be fair. Think I’ve only scanned in twice. Coz I have no life mainly but also the restaurants aren’t fully behind it eitherI haven't got the app. A couple of places have asked me to give my details on a piece of paper so I gave them your mobile number.
I look forward to any calls
The main reason that I posted the article was on the basis that the so called science and the virus has been politicised and yes I do believe that the virus is being used as an excuse to remove all of our freedoms. I do however find the Chinese wet market as the source of the virus to be complete and utter horse shit.Gandalf wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:29 amOk, I read that article. And I must say I'm not really sure why you asked me to read that. It doesn't really relate to the question I asked you. I asked you about the control that you allege the government wants place on the population, while that article is about the virus itself.Ironworksfc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:26 am
You have asked me a question that I am not really sure on the answer. If you look at what is going on in the vast majority of the developed and western world, those in charge appear to be all using the same play book, with their wholely unproportionate response to a novel cold virus. The vast part of that response is to remove civil liberties and put in place laws/legislation that in this country are completely at odds with common law. This continues with the removal of the people's ability to protest and free speech, all being pushed through without any real scrutiny, whilst hiding behind a pandemic that only meets 1 criteria; the virus has crossed borders.
Pretty sure that you will dismiss my view and call me David Icke, or something similar, but the truth of the matter is all of this has happened and is happening now. I fear for where it's going to end up.
If you want to take the time, this is a well written article, might make you think and question, might not.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/cov ... verything/
I do understand that the two subjects are related as they are both part of the bigger picture. But they are two distinct parts of the bigger picture. Reading your comments I don't think you are suggesting that the virus was create with a view to controlling the population. Therefore I would assume, in your view, the virus came first and the government seized the opportunity to use it for their own ends. Correct?
I still want to come back to my original point, but for now let's go with that article.
That article starts off by saying "ASKING questions is at the heart of science. Science is not an institution and not an authority. Science is never settled".
I agree with this. Whatever our understanding is today, we may have a better understanding tomorrow.
The article then goes on to say "The US Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organisation and ‘experts’ have flip-flopped multiple times".
That quote has a very negative tone to it but is basically saying the same thing. Our understandings change. So the article is contradicting itself.
The article quotes Anthony Fauci: ‘In all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’
But that quote was from February 2020. The article is making it clear that science and knowledge changes, and then quotes an Anthony Fauci comment from nearly a year-and-a-half ago, the early days of this pandemic, in what is a fast-changing situation.
The article also quotes Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University to back up the claims that the measures being taken are not working and unnecessary.
Yet Ioannidis himself has been criticised by various people for saying these things, including his own colleague and co-director at Stanford, Steven Goodman who is a professor of epidemiology and population health and of medicine.
So why do you choose to believe one professor and not another, one article and not another, one body of evidence and not another? It's my view that you have already formed your view and then will cherry-pick the information needed to back up that predetermined view.
The article is titled 'Covid – start at the beginning and question everything'.
Question everything. I would whole-heartedly agree with that. But would you?
You will say you will, and you will think you will. But will you really? Will you question that article? Will you ever question your own views?
I don't think you will as I get the feeling your views are set in stone.
Earlier in this post I said "I would assume, in your view, the virus came first and the government seized the opportunity to use it for their own ends. Correct?"
So please tell me, was I right in this assumption?
"I choose to believe the scientists that are backed up with the data that is readily available"Ironworksfc wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:43 amThe main reason that I posted the article was on the basis that the so called science and the virus has been politicised and yes I do believe that the virus is being used as an excuse to remove all of our freedoms. I do however find the Chinese wet market as the source of the virus to be complete and utter horse shit.Gandalf wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:29 am
Ok, I read that article. And I must say I'm not really sure why you asked me to read that. It doesn't really relate to the question I asked you. I asked you about the control that you allege the government wants place on the population, while that article is about the virus itself.
I do understand that the two subjects are related as they are both part of the bigger picture. But they are two distinct parts of the bigger picture. Reading your comments I don't think you are suggesting that the virus was create with a view to controlling the population. Therefore I would assume, in your view, the virus came first and the government seized the opportunity to use it for their own ends. Correct?
I still want to come back to my original point, but for now let's go with that article.
That article starts off by saying "ASKING questions is at the heart of science. Science is not an institution and not an authority. Science is never settled".
I agree with this. Whatever our understanding is today, we may have a better understanding tomorrow.
The article then goes on to say "The US Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organisation and ‘experts’ have flip-flopped multiple times".
That quote has a very negative tone to it but is basically saying the same thing. Our understandings change. So the article is contradicting itself.
The article quotes Anthony Fauci: ‘In all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’
But that quote was from February 2020. The article is making it clear that science and knowledge changes, and then quotes an Anthony Fauci comment from nearly a year-and-a-half ago, the early days of this pandemic, in what is a fast-changing situation.
The article also quotes Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University to back up the claims that the measures being taken are not working and unnecessary.
Yet Ioannidis himself has been criticised by various people for saying these things, including his own colleague and co-director at Stanford, Steven Goodman who is a professor of epidemiology and population health and of medicine.
So why do you choose to believe one professor and not another, one article and not another, one body of evidence and not another? It's my view that you have already formed your view and then will cherry-pick the information needed to back up that predetermined view.
The article is titled 'Covid – start at the beginning and question everything'.
Question everything. I would whole-heartedly agree with that. But would you?
You will say you will, and you will think you will. But will you really? Will you question that article? Will you ever question your own views?
I don't think you will as I get the feeling your views are set in stone.
Earlier in this post I said "I would assume, in your view, the virus came first and the government seized the opportunity to use it for their own ends. Correct?"
So please tell me, was I right in this assumption?
I choose to believe the scientists that are backed up with the data that is readily available, if you choose to look, not the fear pedaling ones that manipulate or only use one matrix of the data for their purposes, eg total cases used singularly.
Like I've said before, I really hope I'm wrong, but given where we are now, I fear I'm not.
palerider wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:51 pm Sit Rep.
Trip to Clark's Village Street.
Burns the Bread (Bakers). No mask required.
Sports Direct. Mask compulsory unless for medical reasons.
Co-Op Street. No mask required but dirty looks.
Halfway House Langport for a pint on the way home. No mask required in fact I get the impression wearing one would have got you banned.
Dogging this evening. Killer Clown mask essential.
Freedom Day ?
Mixed results.
Here is some easily found data on total cases vs total deaths (on the assumption that they were actually positive for covid, given the massive amount of false positive tests) also deaths by age group where you can do some maths and easily come to the factual conclusion that the majority of the population have virtually no risk of dieing.Gandalf wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:04 pm"I choose to believe the scientists that are backed up with the data that is readily available"Ironworksfc wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:43 am
The main reason that I posted the article was on the basis that the so called science and the virus has been politicised and yes I do believe that the virus is being used as an excuse to remove all of our freedoms. I do however find the Chinese wet market as the source of the virus to be complete and utter horse shit.
I choose to believe the scientists that are backed up with the data that is readily available, if you choose to look, not the fear pedaling ones that manipulate or only use one matrix of the data for their purposes, eg total cases used singularly.
Like I've said before, I really hope I'm wrong, but given where we are now, I fear I'm not.
Can you give me some examples please?
