Bizarre take from the Telegraph about the 110 children who have died from Covid 19 in the last 12 months.
So now there are major Universities, John Hopkins (generally a left leaning institution) in the US for example, conducting reasearch that is turning out to be critical of lock down policy and claiming that lock downs only prevented around 0.2% of COVID deaths during the first wave, rather than the 95% that was apparently originally projected by the experts. Saying, for example, that they forced people to meet in indoor environments rather than safer and healthier outdoor locations, and ensuring cross contamination. That 0.2% saved, which initially, to many, will sound like a very meaningful figure, is yet to be fully analysed comparatively with the deaths and serious health issues caused directly by the lock downs, as well as the serious affects they had on commerce and the overall economy. Undiagnosed mortal disease, untreated conditions, mental health issues, etc., all got F'd off and side-lined by the use of lock downs; exactly as predicted by people who were dismissed, by the more emotionally driven majority, as being irresponsible loons out for themselves. So it seems that at least one element of the report that gave this thread its catchy title (the report that also described our vaccine response as one of the greatest medical and administrational achievements of the United Kingdom), may be undermined by the reality of the situation, and our lateness in going into lock down may be described as acting against the scientific evidence being proferred by the 'experts', but it may no longer be described as being a failing, other than in the respect that under pressure from terrorised members of the public, and the experts in SAGE, the Government delayed making the mistake of entering lock-down by a few weeks. It also places Boris in a far more positive position when people mention his apparent comment that we would go into lock down over his dead body. Seems he was a tough talking realist, rather than the murderous devil he was described as, given that the advice coming from undesireable quarters was actually closer to the truth of the matter than that of the 'experts'. If the research coming out of Johns Hopkins, and the other Universities, is borne out, it may then be more of a criticism that he did what everyone was insisting he did, rather than put his foot down. I wonder if Cummings, who will be very aware of this research, will be saying much more about the advice he was giving to Johnson, and his criticisms of the PM for not giving full weight to it? It also puts into perspective the calls for lock-downs from Labour, in England and Wales, and the SNP, and will, I think, make people see more favourably the English approach to the pandemic, which has already resulted in the fastes economic growth in the G7, and forecasts from international monetary bodies which place us in the vanguard of recovery from the effects of the pandemic. Despite Brexit. Or rather, because of Brexit. Funny how things come around.
I see that yesterday reported confirmed infections rose 44% on the previous week. Normal a precursor to a jump in hospitalisations. It seems odd that testing is not seen as integral part of the public health response. i can see how a milder variant now means if your unwell and unable to attend school/work but highly unlikely to need to go to hospital, the disease becomes more like other serious viruses endemic in the population. But this is still the most serious virus pandemic since Spanish flu 100 years ago. you would think regular testing would keep us at least in the game to react to any mutation of significance so that vaccines can be kept effective and treatments for those hospitalised.
Or, if we don't panic, we will learn to live with it, again. We've been ignoring it for hundreds of thousands of years. The expression of naivety in the very unknowing post above properly demonstrates the reasons why our responses to the pandemic were, to a large extent, costly, damaging and futile. COVID is here to stay, and has been since we crawled out of the swamp, stood up on our feet and started thinking we are something special.
The study was not even commissioned by John Hopkins University. The idiot who wrote it is associated in an economics capacity with the institution and is one of those anti-lockdown nutters who have zero knowledge about epidemiology. So keep spouting the tripe. BoJo is as dumb as they come. A shameless idiot who caused untold suffering to tens of thousands and who has no morality or conscience. Let the bodies pile up so long as I am alright Jack. Nearly all nations followed the advice of scientists and the actual experts but not BoJo. Still clinging onto power and using this Ukraine invasion to pretend he is a man of gravitas and doing the right thing. He does just what is right for him.
We never crawled out of a swamp. As far as we know COVID did not exist when we split from the chimpanzees or early australopiths. And humans are special in terms of what their cognition can do in respect of creating tools and high art. You would fit right into a BoJo cabinet. Full of deluded idiots whose combined grey matter would barely be enough to cover a sandwich.
Any evidence for what you say? It is considered that viruses have existed since life has existed. Making the argument that I am wrong because you are ignorant is not a good look. But at least you have proven how easy it is to make monkeys perform… Like, like, like…
He’s now a ‘burgeoning international statesman’ according to the Tory press on Sunday and has seen off any revolt and the Christmas party scandal is condemned to the past and we can look forward to another decade of Johnson rule as leads Europe, nay the world, against the evil Russians, who of course, are mostly all people who were at those parties and now sit in the Lords. No barrel they won’t scrape, no toilet they won’t lick, no **** they won’t wipe over their own faces.
No barrel that you guys haven't already been scraping for the last six years or so, anyway. Now might be a Good time to re-Read this thread and see how much of what was being said was simply BS, or the impotent whinging of people who can't deal with having backed the wrong side in democratic vote after democratic vote. This thread is more like peer support for those struggling to justify being middle class in a world where class difference is the biggest problem we face today. Shouting at people to say 'but they are the tories' doesn't cut it any more, because people see middle class lefties as the new 'tories', and frankly, from the views expressed by those purporting to be of the left, on here, you could barely squeeze a fag paper between a classic middle class bigot of fifty years ago, and those who style themselves as the intellectual 'middle class' heroes of today.
I assume this is the "study" you're referring to. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/ Appears highly, highly dubious on the face of it.
Laughable. Snopes, a Web site I have been using for over twenty years now, criticising an author because he likened lock downs to fascism. And even then, it Confirms the author IS a Johns Hopkins professor, IS still employed by them, and the study WAS carried out by an associate school of John's Hopkins. The point being made was that even such Universities are carrying out such work. So thank you Snopes, for confirming what I said. But anyone reading the article will see that one of it's criticisms is that one of the authors had the temerity to liken lockdowns to fascism. What is it, whether done in Good faith or bad, about lock downs that does not equate to fascist authoritarianism? They appear to be saying, as it appears do you, that the following are not the stuff of fascist dictatorship: Curfews Local travel restrictions International travel restrictions Travel bans Gym bans Shopping restrictions Bans on face to face trading, effecting small business livlihood Limitations on gatherings Restrictions on family and friends meetings Hospital visits to dying loved ones Restrictions on use of local ameneties Mask mandates, or No travel No shopping No job Vaccine mandates, or No job No social life That's just scratching the surface of it. And all because governments sought to consider the effects of the pandemic BEFORE any other factor, unquestionably with a cost to lives, mental health, children's education, etc.. There are alternatives, and whilst those alternatives exist, it is entirely appropriate to point out that certain decisions are more in line with fascism than a free society. It is also fair to defend their use, but that must allow criticism, or face even more justified claims of fascism. Some huge corporations have made billions out of the pandemic, reflecting an obvious conclusion that these giant companies have directly benefitted, though benefitted barely even begins to describe it, from the chosen government policy. A definition of fascist economy, coined, I believe, by Mussolini himself, is the combination of state and corporate, which has not only been reflected during the pandemic in an obscene increase in profits, and the destruction of smaller competition, but also, reciprocally, in the policing of opinion and discussion of government critical views by the media, tech giants and social media. Blimey, even Ben and f'ing Jerrys. Let's face it, the reaction to criticism and non-conformity has been such that comparison to a burgeoning nazi Germany is not at all out of place.
Why can't you read ? To still be a supporter of an idiot and liar. A man whose incompetence knows no bounds. Who think's he is tremendously clever and intelligent when he is in actuality a complete fool. Who has no decency or indeed shred of shame in him to resign over numerous failings. Who is more than ready to claim credit when it is not his to claim but is more than ready to pass on blame to others. You support him still time and time again. Which reflects badly on you. Politicians in the past in the wake of scandals normally had the decency to resign and admit they were wrong. Not Bojo. A callous, hard hearted, thick as two short planks, sorry example of a so called Prime Minister. And a desperate populist.
I support him because he is capable enough to get things done, and I believe that is the same with most people in the UK, when it comes to considering the alternatives. It is not my fault you guys built him up to be an achiever of miracles. All the things you said could not be achieved, like the vaccine pathway, deals with the EU, trade agreements that were supposed to take ten years but happened virtually overnight. He may well be a dik, like so many other MPs, but he has proved that he can get things done, whether you like it or not. All Starmer has done is prove he can sit on the fence, bend his knee to racist ideologies, watch over his party as anti-Semitism continues to fester in its institutions, and constantly reminds the working people of this country that he has no more idea what species they are than he has the rules of football. It’s simple. Boris isn’t the demon you make him out to be, nor is he a saint. But he can get things done, and he appears even more impressive just because you guys predicted he would fail on all the things he went on to achieve, as I’ve been pointing out to you for a couple of years now. All those who hate him will always hate him. But anyone who listened to what he said he would do, in the face of some very seriously spoken BS rubbish from the left saying they were impossible, will naturally see him in a different light to how you see him. All we have seen the alternatives do is bicker, rant, and question the character of every Briton that disagrees with them. You are the reason for his legend. You are the reason people believe he can do miracles. Where he is incompetent, it does not matter, because people would rather have a flawed leader that achieves, than a flawed leader that is the soggiest of wet blankets. He has proven most competent in the major concerns for the UK public, and no whinging from people who would call him a **** if he pulled them out from in front of a bus is going to persuade the rest of us otherwise.
You've been brainwashed by his three words mantras. For someone who uses so many words when a few would suffice, I'm surprized you've been sucked in by this 'repeat three words often enough and the masses will believe us' strategy.
I’m no fan of Boris but he’s clearly not thick or dumb, as you claim. He lacks astuteness, a properly attuned political radar, but he’s not stupid. Still, it’s your standard insult for anyone who takes a different view to you, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
Tell me. Did he get Brexit through, against every thing that could be thrown at him and with what effectively turned out in the end to be a minority Government? Did he renegotiate a Brexit "deal" through Parliament when he was told it was impossible? Prior to leaving? Did he get a trade deal with the EU in place despite being told it was impossible? During the transition. Did he lead a government that produced a vaccine pathway described, in the same report that gave this thread its name, as the greatest administrational and medical achievement since the industrial revolution? Did he win an election, after delivering Brexit, with a record majority? If he had not done those things, arguably the major concerns of the British people during his tenure, then I would say you have a point. But seeing as he did, I think it is more likely that it is you who has been brain washed into thinking "he is a tory" and therefore cannot or does not get things done, no matter what he does. Clearly he is not going to please you, or do the things you would want him to do. But that is something people are supposed to deal with in a democracy. Try coping.
Sorry I beg to differ. It's not because of de Pfeffel's waffling Churchillian 'oratory' (the dog on the advert) his ASD-like ability to memorise text and regurgitate it at inappropriate moments (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...reciting-kipling-poem-in-burmese-temple-video) but the fact he's just not funny. I've had the privilege of working for, and with, some of the cleverest people on the planet - every single one of them (men and women of many nationalities) had highly developed senses of humour and could be very funny (incidentally all the frauds who had climbed the greasy pole of academia through neopotism and luck, generally knowledge of how to operate complex and expensive machinary, were humourless so and so's). I've no wit, insight nor spontaneity in anything de Pfeffel's ever done or said. If he was on the comedy circuit he'd be known as a 'joke blower' endlessly repeating, badly, someone else's (stolen) gags.
I think that there are many definitions of intelligence. Certainly being quick witted and "fast on your feet" in response to others is one of them. That is not Johnson. His constant avoidance of live interviews demonstrates that. And when he is "cornered" he invariably responds with a well rehearsed divergence line about something else (think vaccines rollout for example). I wouldn't describe him as dumb. He's certainly well read and can regurgitate a speech or sound bites well. But I don't think he is particularly intelligent and he's definitely not a statesman or honourable politician. I don't think history will remember him kindly.
So his educational achievements are meaningless? Or, for that matter, his early journalistic career? Whatever the level of cronyism there may have been, I doubt anyone could become editor of The Spectator if they were 'as thick as two short planks'. I agree with Sydney, quick-wittedness and intelligence are distinct although they do often go together. I certainly don't think he's a statesman but that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent: however, as I say, he certainly lacks a lot of political intelligence.
I dunno what goes on at NotHarrow but the, admittedly very few, old boys from that place I've met (Etonians who were sharing Newcastle university digs with a Georgian, FSU, mate of the girlfriend who became my wife) who openly talked about it being a social and networking club with excellent facilities that taught you how to pass exams - if you needed 'extra help' that was freely available. Also, from my time in the Baltic states (when well over 50% of the populations were at least bilingual - the ethnic Russian populations didn't need to be in the USSR) I learnt that language proficiency is no indicator of intelligence. I've frequently remarked of my many experiences of working/dealing with those *bermensch from Camford... Which early career? The one at 'The Times' (when it was still a quality) where he was too thick to realise you could be sacked for lying in print? But, de Pfeffel can't 'do' funny, which in my book/experience is a/the big indicator of intelligence.
OK, well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm not suggesting he's about to win the Nobel prize for anything but there are plenty, plenty more stupid politicians out there than Boris.
Unless the Nobel Committee launches a new prize for bullshitting and lying. Then, my friends, we have a World leader.
...and going back to my original assertion - I was extremely fortunate to hear Andre Geim speak at Imperial College shortly after he received some sort of bauble to complement his 'Ig' - he was hysterically funny.
Haha...but no UK & no 'public health'. I'm reliably informed it was all God's punishment meted out to an inadequately pious society.
The Tories big lie on care homes utterly exposed in court last week, when its policy of discharging untested patients was found unlawful. The Government has claimed repeatedly that it placed a ‘protective ring’ around care homes, but as everyone knew, its policy was send untested patients home from hospital and pressure care homes into taking them. The blatant lies continue as the Government continues to claim it did not know about asymptomatic transmission early on. This is nonsense, as it was spoken about early in March by the CMO. A shocking lie for a shocking failure. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-61227709
There is more chance of WFC escaping relegation than the CoVid inquiry reporting before the next GE......
The estimable Dr Philip Ball was on this afternoon BBC R4's Inside Science (from 10'40") and calmly refuted every single one of Sunak's attacks on SAGE during WWC. Philip wasn't the only one to call Sunak out on his bollox.
Great news for all who claimed lock downs were the way to reduce COVID, whilst ignoring and suppressing the arguments of those who had concerns about the wider effect of such a course of action. YES, the lockdowns were effective against the spread of COVID, at least early on, and could have reduced infections if they had been introduced earlier. So, lockdowns. Great for reducing spread. Horrific news though for absolutely everyone affected by the lockdowns. Does anyone out there still want to insist that we have to pay attention without question to experts? Excess deaths massively up (16% in the EU) and predominantly non-COVID. And that is before you factor in chronic diseases left to fester, illness that is now palliative rather than radical, mental health issues, suicides, etc.. I am not blaming governments around the world for opting for lock downs, even if it was an issue of mass hysteria rather than thorough examination of the facts. When you are in charge, you have to make decisions, and I am prepared to accept honest mistakes being made, in lieu of me actually putting myself forward to take charge. But the suppression of discussion and the authoritarian response to protest was an awful thing, that cannot be considered a mistake, but bad form, and a failure of responsibility. We appear to have been lucky with the vaccine, though the full extent of the side effects may still have some unpleasant surprises in store for us, yet. Let us hope that any assertions that excess deaths have been affected by the jab are the fearful expression of conspiracy theorists. Again, I believe the vaccine was appropriate (and always have said that on here, despite what some may say), and that most of the loosening of precautions was not unreasonable, and that overall it did save lives. But suppressing discussion and people's concerns was not necessarily the most efficacious way of gaining acceptance from the target audience, or of preparing for the aftermath.
