- This topic has 70 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“And meanwhile the problems, in great part created by the Tories with growing NHS waiting lists means an opportunity to siphon even more public funds to cronies under the excuse of more efficiency.”
No doubt that you will be correct that that will happen. It wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing as long as it is temporary to get waiting lists down. And it wouldn’t be the first time. Waiting list iniatives are not new but require payments to people doing extra weekend and evening work. Also, more throughput means more bed occupancy, beds which the NHS may not have available so there is a place for private hospitals to pitch in. It would be msotly NHS consultants working in a private capacity who would be doing the surgery.
The problem will come with budgeting and any increase in throughput via waiting list iniatives needs to be funded with EXTRA money and not from already strained existing hospital budgets. Again, it will be the work of NHS and some private hospital staff which achieves this but the the government will claim it was their doing. When a government manages something well are they not entitled to claim some credit? What are the criteria for praiseworthiness of a government’s action?Mods, is it possible to explain why Clark is allowed to accuse other correspondents of “bad faith” while presenting zero evidence for his ad hominem attack? Wouldn’t others be ‘moderated’ for throwing around wild accusations of lying on the forum? Perhaps I am mistaken in my appreciation of the board rules.
—
[ Mod: If you have a question about moderation you should post it in the Blog Support forum, not in a topical thread.Incidentally, J, you can use your regular identity as your temporary ban for repeatedly posting off topic comments in defiance of moderation expired at the end of December. ]
“– If we begin to accept the evidence that acute COVID19 is — at its core — a severe autoimmune ‼️???????? ?????????? disorder, then all of below “with” COVID hospitalizations become “for” COVID:”
So if we accept the evidence that the vaccine is “a severe autoimmune ‼️???????? ?????????? disorder” does that make everyone who is admitted to hospital with one of those complaints after taking the vaccine in hospital because of the vaccine?
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.779453/full
“does that make everyone who is admitted to hospital with one of those complaints after taking the vaccine in hospital because of the vaccine?”
Yes, it does mean that.
“So if we accept the evidence that the vaccine is “a severe autoimmune ‼️???????? ?????????? disorder”
Management of thromboembolic events following COVID-19 vaccination (pdf) – Royal College of Surgeons of England (30 April 2021)
COVID-19 infection is itself associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with 1 in 5 patients admitted to hospital experiencing VTE complications. This has contributed to significant vascular-related morbidity and mortality.
Note that 1 in 5 figure: that’s one in five of hundreds of thousands of people.
In contrast, VITT is a rare adverse event after COVID-19 vaccination. Cavernous sinus thrombosis is the most common site (50%) followed by splanchnic vein thrombosis (30%). How rare? As of 4 April 2021, a total of 169 cases of cavernous sinus thrombosis and 53 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis had been reported via the European Union drug safety database EudraVigilance in a vaccinated population of around 34 million people by that date. So approx 0.0006% of all vaccinated people (so far less than your chance of being killed in an RTA) versus 20% of all hospitalised covid patients. That difference is enormous, Fred. How about you apply some critical thinking and risk assessment? I asked you a question Fred in an earlier post.
You say diabetes can kill you, and I’d ask you how do you know that?Apologies to SA but I can’t leave Fred’s comment unanswered.
“You say diabetes can kill you, and I’d ask you how do you know that?”
My wife was diabetic, she died before reaching pension age and almost died several times before that, especially after the introduction of synthetic insulin when she could pass out at any time without warning. Life expectancy of a type 1 diabetic is around 20 years less than the average
I was talking about how the media has lied to us which we now know they did. We now know the scientists lied to us about the origins of covid in a lab in Wuhan. We know the government lied to us telling us it was unsafe to meet more than one person while they themselves held parties. All this time those who told the truth were getting their social media accounts suspended. That was what I was talking about so why the hell are you insisting I reveal personal information about myself on a public forum?
“why the hell are you insisting I reveal personal information about myself on a public forum?”
I didn’t.
I am sorry to hear your wife has passed and suffered from the debilitating disease diabetes. I am aware of the consequences and complications from diabetes which was my point. Much of the data of associated diabetic complications and death came from analysis of death certificate data and time from diagnosis to complications appearing or death. You make the point that type 1 diabetics have a life expectancy of 20 years less than others. Such data comes from associating initial diagnoses with deaths within a timeframe much like has been done with covid patients, although obviously much longer timeframes. Same goes for other causes of death. It’s an important tool for investigating disease burden along with other tools.
“We now know the scientists lied to us about the origins of covid in a lab in Wuhan.”
No, I don’t know that and neither do you. I don’t discount the possibility but in no way can I be certain.
“We know the government lied to us telling us it was unsafe to meet more than one person while they themselves held parties.”
That government members were flouting rules the legislated for doesn’t negate the fact that meeting multiple other people during a pandemic of a transmissible disease increased your risk of catching said disease and that holds true and will always hold true for any transmissible infectious disease. Exercise of caution was warranted. You will somehow have to explain where all the excess deaths came from and in light of the analysed data I linked to above excess deaths did not manifest themselves in other causes of death, at least not yet.
Fred
Very sorry to hear that your wife died from complications of diabetes. You have my full sympathy.
This link talks about life expectancy in type 1 diabetes and suggests a lesser reduction in life expectancy. It also points out the fact that these figures are rather outdated and that much better methods of sugar control and monitoring has improved life expectancy and reduces diabetes-induced complications either because of the high blood sugar or low blood sugar sometimes caused by insulin.No doubt the message that most lay people get from what has been happening is that they have been deceived by government and sadly the latest revelations about parties organised by senior government officials despite their own guidelines, reinforces these beliefs. The problem is that pandemics are public health and medical matters. Control of infection and prevention of contagion are some of the very basic measures in public health. These are, identify those who carry the virus, total isolation, prevent travel, wear masks for respiratory viruses and identify and isolate contacts. These measures should be carried out strictly, which means supervised isolation facilities and those who are isolated cared for in an organised way. The big mistake we had is that these measures were carried out late and extremely inadequately. People asked to voluntarily isolate at home, only led to an increase in infections at home to relatives and to other residents in care homes, and very high death rates. The inconveniences caused by these half-hearted measures because the government was not prepared or willing to hand this over to public health authorities is what happened instead, leading to the mess we are in. Do not blame the professionals, this was a political decision and all the professionals did was to give advice behind closed doors which was often ignored or interpreted in a political way. Imagine a bunch of politically driven MPs voting on public health measures. Viruses do not listen to parliaments or politicians.
No, I don’t know that and neither do you. I don’t discount the possibility but in no way can I be certain.
So you believe, in light of recent leaked emails, that when the WHO told us that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely” they may have been telling the truth?
I have a bridge for sale.
As I said Fred, I remain to be definitively convinced it was either a lab created virus leak or a natural evolved event. It remains possible it could be either and should any further evidence either way come to light I will review it. The last really big pandemic was 1918 and that was before anyone could manipulate viral DNA/RNA. Natural pandemics are self evidently possible. You might wish to review some of the previous thread on the origins of Sars-Cov-2.
I’m not sure I am even aware of the leaked emails you mentioned. My own view is that we will never find out for sure. In either case it still needed dealing with.Fred, what did you expect? I went into London around the end of February 2020, a rally to support Julian Assange, so I got to see newspapers. The government had bought a whole page spread:
– The Government and the NHS are well prepared for the novel coronavirus”
I just laughed. Seriously Fred, when did the government and the “MSM” ever not lie? Didn’t you hear you should never believe anything you read in the papers? “Dr” Mike “there can be no second wave” Yeadon has gone full-blown anti-vax since the Telegraph’s resident science denier Delingpole launched him to fame on his blog. The BBC are now interviewing Sunetra “there can be no second wave” Gupta with slightly less conspicuous enthusiasm. Which lies to believe, eh? How about “Omicron is mild, says the South African Minster for Tourism”?
Honestly, Fred, I can’t understand why you’re ranting click-bait for conspiracy theorists; are you looking to be the new Alex Jones?
We all know that the WHO were just being polite to the Chinese government, to encourage further cooperation. The WHO Director rowed back on it the next day or something. And Daszak was on that WHO mission to China, so it’s no surprise that he said that, because he was the one who’d outsourced the research that had escaped.
‘Kevin’/J, Fred is someone I knew in the real world, and I think he’s talking out the side of his face. I wouldn’t know how to be straight with him without telling him that I think he’s pulling our legs.
I’m not sure I am even aware of the leaked emails you mentioned.
Probably because the biassed BBC kept quiet about them.
They are the emails in which the world’s top scientists agreed not to discuss their doubts over the origins of covid so as not to upset the Chinese.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/leaked-scientists-emails-claim-covid-22726252
‘Kevin’/J, Clark is someone I knew in the real world, he gets off on Panic Porn, if it isn’t covid going to kill us all it’s climate change.
As I said before, I think the MPs that history will look favourably on are the ones who kept their heads and voted against their party whip.
Why I OPPOSE Vaccine Mandates, COVID Passports & Big Pharma – by Jeremy Corbyn (Double Down News, 18 Jan 2022) – YouTube, 8m 32s
There was a book published that collated all the evidence for the lab leak theory recently: Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 by Matt Ridley (a Viscount and climate change denier who previously argued that HIV escaped from a lab) and Alina Chan (the foremost proponent of the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak theory on Twitter). They claimed to remain agnostic about whether it was leaked from a lab or had a natural origin.
Are you more certain than they are, Fred? If so, what’s the basis for your certainty?
ET’s position – “No, I don’t know that and neither do you. I don’t discount the possibility but in no way can I be certain” – is a wise one at the moment.
On the other hand, Fred, you’re about as credible as any other shifty bridge salesman.
[ Mod: J (aka ‘Kevin’), you have posted another reply that says nothing about the thread topic. You were advised that complaints about moderation should be posted in the Blog Support Forum, where they can be addressed by moderators without distracting from the topical focus of a discussion thread. Yet, more than two days after the guidance was published, you still haven’t taken the advice to repost your complaint in the appropriate forum. And now you’ve compounded the issue by posting yet another complaint about moderation without mentioning the thread topic.
Something similar happened in the comments section a few weeks ago, leading to your temporary suspension: after you highlighted an alleged covid mandate scandal in Australia in a thread about Craig’s incarceration and were duly advised to post the same material in the discussion forum, you instead reposted it (twice) in the same thread, whereupon it was suspended again, and you went on to complain about censorship by moderators. You seem unwilling to follow the Relevance rule or to comply with moderation requests. (By contrast, plenty of other people receive the same reminder and comply with the instructions without raising a protest about it.) You were advised to stop posting off-topic content and warned about wasting our time, and yet here you are, flagrantly ignoring the rule and wasting our time with more false allegations about moderation, while using a pseudonym to evade detection.
Our patience is not limitless. In light of your latest behaviour, I’ll recommend a permanent ban to the moderation team. I’ll also repost your complaints in the Blog Support Forum, where they can be properly addressed. ]
—[ Comment suspended ]
Are you more certain than they are, Fred? If so, what’s the basis for your certainty?
I’m certain that it isn’t “extremely unlikely”.
What makes you so certain that it is “extremely unlikely”?
What makes you so certain that scientists wouldn’t lie to us?
“Oof” (Fraudci lies again) – by Memology 101 (13 Jan 2022) – YouTube, 0m 50s
Meanwhile NATO and our government are preparing us for war and for gas price hikes because how dare Putin cut his gas when we sanction him and threaten war? Where is the peace movement? In the case of the Iraq war there was a great response but it seems that the spirit is gone out of the anti-war movement and once again a lying UK prime minister gets away with lies by indulging in war on top of what has been committed already. And we are still debating same old debates of 2 years ago.
What makes you so certain that it is “extremely unlikely”?
What are you wittering on about, Fred? Why are you casting around that term “extremely unlikely”? Here’s the first occurrence of it in this thread:
Fred
January 24, 2022 at 19:54No, I don’t know that and neither do you. I don’t discount the possibility but in no way can I be certain.
So you believe, in light of recent leaked emails, that when the WHO told us that a lab leak was “extremely unlikely” they may have been telling the truth?
I have a bridge for sale.
You’re arguing with your own straw man. ET said he didn’t know, but didn’t discount the possibility and remained to be convinced. Clark said the WHO made a statement for political reasons and then rowed back on it, and that Daszak had an ulterior motive. So why introduce this nonsense about “extremely unlikely”? Why the false accusations that the people you’re arguing with here believe it? It’s a blatant attempt to provoke.
And who introduced the subject of the lab leak theory to this thread in the first place? It was YOU –
Fred
January 24, 2022 at 10:46We now know the scientists lied to us about the origins of covid in a lab in Wuhan.
You’re trying to hijack a thread and divert it onto your own choice of topic, so you can post conspiracy theory propaganda that you’ve picked up from other covid sceptic sites. Surely this is an issue for the mods?!
Fred, you wrote, “I think the MPs that history will look favourably on are the ones who kept their heads and voted against their party whip”, and then linked to a video of Jeremy Corbyn, who said a lot of things I thoroughly agree with. But Corbyn didn’t vote against his party’s whip, did he?
And yes, scientists are human, and sometimes lie. But that’s not the same as faking their data. Trusting science is not the same as trusting a scientist, just as trusting a bank is not the same as trusting a banker.
“Meanwhile NATO and our government are preparing us for war………….”
Our brave and dedicated fishermen of Ireland are preparing to peacefully disrupt Russian naval drills of the south west coast of Ireland planned in the next few weeks. Apparently the Ruskies are threatening biodiversity and marine life. Even though they will legally take place in international waters and Russia has given the requisite announcements and followed the relevant international protocols they will take place within Ireland’s exclusive economic zone and are being touted as a strategic and military threat. Some suggesting the exercises are a possible cover for cutting international cables. The last couple of days the Irish media have been full of it, talking up the (non-existent) Russian threat to Ireland.
Our man Leo Varadkar had this to say (former Taoiseach -prime mminister now Taniste- deputy Prime Minister:
“We have made it very clear that these exercises are not welcome particularly in the current context, when tensions are rising in relation to Ukraine, and that’s been communicated to them very strongly.”
Since when has little old Ireland been used to trot out such bollox. Delusions of grandeur in Irish political circles. We’ll be relying on you Brits to come to our aid because we certainly don’t have anything remotely capable of dealing with Russian warships. Much better to invite them in for a pint and a hot one.
Proved my point more or less.
—
[ Mod: You were asked to move your comments, not withhold them. The clear advice was to repost the same content on a more appropriate forum on this same website – and you didn’t do so. That hardly counts as censorship. ]And to hear parliament today praising the liar Johnson for being strong by sending half a dozen troops to Ukraine whilst withdrawing diplomatic staff from Kiev as precaution, from what? I don’t know.
But of course it seems that Johnson knows more of Putin’s intentions than it seems Putin himself knows. No body in parliament today was much interested in Minsk or in anyone in the Donbas, they seem to be disappeared and all there is there are Russian troops. And whilst the foreign office false flag operation that Moscow is planning to replace the Kiev regime, which has become an international joke that even the Ukrainians laughed at, our parliament appear to be even more gullible than usual.
Gosh I am enjoying very much being off topic here, but hey, what does it matter, everyone else is.
Fred, you wrote, “I think the MPs that history will look favourably on are the ones who kept their heads and voted against their party whip”, and then linked to a video of Jeremy Corbyn, who said a lot of things I thoroughly agree with. But Corbyn didn’t vote against his party’s whip, did he?
The Labour party supported covid passports, Corbyn voted against.
