COVID THREAD

[onewheeldave 22]

2 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Sigh...if you get off yer high horse for a second and reread what i wrote, which you quoted, i said NONE of you were covid deniers, fairplay, thats a positive surely?

what i also said was The Daddys come close as he HAS used terms like scamdemic now and again, which as well as plandemic is terms (nice handy easy to run off the tongue slogans) used by Covid deniers

Here is your post.

4 hours ago, melthebell said:

tbf all 4 of them are covid deniers, although Daddys come close using terms like scamdemic

 

[melthebell 864]

2 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Here is your post.

 

OK, fairplay, my bad, that was a typo, ive been back and checked, it was meant to say ARENT, ive edited it now

[Chekhov 488]

 I said : "Conspiracy theorist" Not sure what your definition is there, but I have consistently said that the government's strategy has been to scare people into compliance with their suppression measures. They have provably done so, I have loads of examples, but just one will suffice for now :

Government radio advert Jan 2021 : "That person passing you in the park is highly likely to have Covid"
At the time it was about 1 in 50, which is not highly likely by any reasonable definition of the word. Neither is it at all likely that anyone would catch Covid outdoors from someone passing them in the park.
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/government-pulls-ad-states-joggers-highly-likely-covid-19/1705305

 

3 hours ago, melthebell said:

A conspiracy theorist is somebody who believes in a conspiracy that cannot be proved so its only a theory, thats you i agree, well done, 2 out of 3 aint bad

Are you are still accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist (it's difficult to tell) despite the fact that I have proven that my argument (that the government has deliberately tried so scare people in order to increase compliance with their suppression policy).

Let me remind you :

Government radio advert Jan 2021 : "That person passing you in the park is highly likely to have Covid"
At the time it was about 1 in 50, which is not highly likely by any reasonable definition of the word. Neither is it at all likely that anyone would catch Covid outdoors from someone passing them in the park.
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/government-pulls-ad-states-joggers-highly-likely-covid-19/1705305

 

I do not think you realise how silly you look......

 

BTW, I notice that you still have not provided any evidence whatsoever to back your scurrilous assertion that I am a liar.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Interestingly, Steve68, who appears to be one of your fellow suppressionists, has accused me of using too much evidence to back my arguments. Perhaps you should get together with him and agree which route you want to take to try and attack me, because, at the moment, you are both arguing in an a contradictory manner

Edited January 6, 2022 by Chekhov

[melthebell 864]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 I said : "Conspiracy theorist" Not sure what your definition is there, but I have consistently said that the government's strategy has been to scare people into compliance with their suppression measures. They have provably done so, I have loads of examples, but just one will suffice for now :

Government radio advert Jan 2021 : "That person passing you in the park is highly likely to have Covid"
At the time it was about 1 in 50, which is not highly likely by any reasonable definition of the word. Neither is it at all likely that anyone would catch Covid outdoors from someone passing them in the park.
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/government-pulls-ad-states-joggers-highly-likely-covid-19/1705305

 

Are you are still accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist (it's difficult to tell) despite the fact that I have proven that my argument (that the government has deliberately tried so scare people in order to increase compliance with their suppression policy).

I do not think you realise how silly you look......

 

BTW, I notice that you still have not provided any evidence whatsoever to back your scurrilous assertion that I am a liar.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Interestingly, Steve68, who appears to be one of your fellow suppressionists, has accused me of using too much evidence to back my arguments. Perhaps you should get together with him and agree which route you want to take to try and attack me, because, at the moment, you are both arguing in an a contradictory manner

Steve is also one of those vunerable people youd like to kill in your selfish quest for "freedom" and "civil rights" 

[Chekhov 488]

17 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I really feel for you.

However Starmer always seems to get it wrong. He has no feel for the way people are leaning. He's caught between supporting the pandemic moves to show solidarity, and trying to be in opposition at the same time.

The sooner he goes the better.

I agree with you Anna.

I think Labour will pay for its position on Covid in the long run.  

Up to about now they have always been careful to go for where they think the majority of the electorate are, and attack the government at the same time. That may have slightly increased their poll ratings at the moment (not that it will do them any good because there is no election due for over two years) but in the long term people will have forgotten what position Labour took during this nightmare. Furthermore I am certain people's attitude to the suppression policy will become more pragmatic (and less emotional) as time goes on and the damage it caused becomes more obvious and starts affecting their lives more and more. 

But people like me will never forget what Labour have done, I will never vote for them again.

[steve68 66]

25 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Steve is also one of those vunerable people youd like to kill in your selfish quest for "freedom" and "civil rights" 

it's ok Mel, i understand i'm  acceptable collateral damage to chekhov, having mothballed my business during lockdowns due to  shielding etc i'll be adapting by selling those premises in the spring and hopefully we'll be relocating in the next few months enabling  3 property renovations, so enough to keep me busy, or maybe i could just whine about the business and pontificate on a forum, the end of this year is going to be our retirement year.

what chekhov fails to comprend is i couldnt give 2poops let alone attack him, my take on covid comes from several teams of sheffield health professional that have taken care of my needs since 2012 ,I trusted them back then and I trust them now. 

 

when i post about how fabulous the Sheffield care has been from a users perspective , all 4 jabs arranged and administered fuss free, now antivirals available should i contract covid , certain posters just gloss over any positives, as it doesn't fit their negative narrative. So people i know face to face or random sceptics on the net, it's such a tough choice 🤫

Edited January 6, 2022 by steve68

[melthebell 864]

26 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I agree with you Anna.

I think Labour will pay for its position on Covid in the long run.  

Up to about now they have always been careful to go for where they think the majority of the electorate are, and attack the government at the same time. That may have slightly increased their poll ratings at the moment (not that it will do them any good because there is no election due for over two years) but in the long term people will have forgotten what position Labour took during this nightmare. Furthermore I am certain people's attitude to the suppression policy will become more pragmatic (and less emotional) as time goes on and the damage it caused becomes more obvious and starts affecting their lives more and more. 

But people like me will never forget what Labour have done, I will never vote for them again.

I presume the tories are more your bag now since in his quest for populism he seems to have ditched most restrictions and gone for the "let it ride out" scenario, that most of his back benchers want, and people like you, at the expense of those that air on the side of caution

[hackey lad 3,991]

1 hour ago, retep said:

I read it all before I posted,  it's a sad day when doctors concentrate on a disease that may or may not kill you,  and ignore diseases that most certainly will.

Point out where they concentrated on covid 

[steve68 66]

1 hour ago, retep said:

I read it all before I posted,  it's a sad day when doctors concentrate on a disease that may or may not kill you,  and ignore diseases that most certainly will.

Her G.P  referred her to a consultant, she then had a face to face meeting where the person she saw, who failed to examine her fully,.

 

I'd say not related to covid, if there is a fault it could be argued the person she saw, for not thinking through the symptoms and concluding what the cause actually could be rather than dismissing her age as the general rule. Tragic for the family and friends 

Edited January 6, 2022 by steve68

[Anna B 1,417]

12 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Point out where they concentrated on covid 

I think the waiting lists for everything else do that.

[hackey lad 3,991]

1 minute ago, Anna B said:

I think the waiting lists for everything else do that.

Have you read the story ?

[Anna B 1,417]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Have you read the story ?

Er, no. Sorry, I forgot to check back.

Can you point me in the right direction with a post number.