Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is being rather overstated I think.  Did it reduce the chance of getting the virus?  Yes.  If you don't have the virus can you transmit it?  No.  Does it also reduce the severity if you do get it?  Yes.  Are you less likely to transit it? if your symptoms are less severe?  Unknown at the time, but theoretically yes, and later proven to be Yes.  

 

Yes of course it is tragic that some people reacted badly to the vaccine and some of those died.  Many more people would likely have died without the vaccine rollout.

Same old lines mate and I guess the Covid police in here will always follow the narrative which was pushed so hard. That's fine I get it. My response to your questions is yes they could be true, but on the other hand they could easily be just another set of lies to add to the list. You've only got to look at Purdue with the opioid scandal and Merck with Vioxx that these companies don't care one bit about being honest. Even when they get caught they just pay a fine and keep going. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, Soup said:

Same old lines mate and I guess the Covid police in here will always follow the narrative which was pushed so hard. That's fine I get it. My response to your questions is yes they could be true, but on the other hand they could easily be just another set of lies to add to the list. You've only got to look at Purdue with the opioid scandal and Merck with Vioxx that these companies don't care one bit about being honest. Even when they get caught they just pay a fine and keep going. 

Worth saying here: The findings here are not some shock that overturns everything we knew. They hoped when they created the vaccines that they might affect transmission rates, but we suspected at the time that they didn’t. However, that factor had little to no effect on policy.

 

Why?

 

Because the primary aim was to protect the NHS. (And therefore by association to protect us.) The policy-making, from the start, was geared toward ensuring that the NHS could continue to provide treatment to all emergency patients, that it didn’t get overwhelmed and force doctors into the terrible decisions of who got treatment and who didn’t. There is probably an argument to be had about older people in care homes at the start of the pandemic falling victim to this, but the policy to that regard was otherwise successful - first through the dreaded lockdowns and then through mass vaccination so that the NHS didn’t need lockdowns anymore. Unless you preferred the lockdowns, if you’re hoping this is some sort of “A-HA!!!” moment then you’re way off.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Worth saying here: The findings here are not some shock that overturns everything we knew. They hoped when they created the vaccines that they might affect transmission rates, but we suspected at the time that they didn’t. However, that factor had little to no effect on policy.

 

Why?

 

Because the primary aim was to protect the NHS. (And therefore by association to protect us.) The policy-making, from the start, was geared toward ensuring that the NHS could continue to provide treatment to all emergency patients, that it didn’t get overwhelmed and force doctors into the terrible decisions of who got treatment and who didn’t. There is probably an argument to be had about older people in care homes at the start of the pandemic falling victim to this, but the policy to that regard was otherwise successful - first through the dreaded lockdowns and then through mass vaccination so that the NHS didn’t need lockdowns anymore. Unless you preferred the lockdowns, if you’re hoping this is some sort of “A-HA!!!” moment then you’re way off.

If you don't mind media and government telling you lies then fair play. They obviously won't do it again will they. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, marbles said:

Here, I compiled a list of 535 other hypocrites for you to keep an eye on also

 

https://www.congress.gov/members

 

Perhaps there's a handful that aren't, but yes, the money corrups everything.

 

Which is why, rather than unrealistic idealism,I tend to go for simple overall harm reduction when looking at such things. And the options are very, very clear and obvious there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gerblod

gerblod

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Soup said:

If you don't mind media and government telling you lies then fair play. They obviously won't do it again will they. 

We all know that governments are obliged to bend the truth - sometimes it breaks. If they lie to save their own necks then let the law punish them. But if it's for an altruistic purpose then it's allowable/forgiveable. What we fail to do often enough is open these people up to public scrutiny. 

Here's an instance - once the German coding machine was 'broken' German forces were allowed to attack their targets without the kind of interference which would have given away the fact that their intentions were known. I suspect that decision was made by Churchill himself. But that allowed thousands of deaths and injury to soldiers and civilians alike. In the long game it probably saved hundreds of thousands. Was he right? It wasn't a lie but a concealment of the truth. Politics is by nature chicanery.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, gerblod said:

We all know that governments are obliged to bend the truth - sometimes it breaks. If they lie to save their own necks then let the law punish them. But if it's for an altruistic purpose then it's allowable/forgiveable. What we fail to do often enough is open these people up to public scrutiny. 

Here's an instance - once the German coding machine was 'broken' German forces were allowed to attack their targets without the kind of interference which would have given away the fact that their intentions were known. I suspect that decision was made by Churchill himself. But that allowed thousands of deaths and injury to soldiers and civilians alike. In the long game it probably saved hundreds of thousands. Was he right? It wasn't a lie but a concealment of the truth. Politics is by nature chicanery.

 

.... and that was an (ultimately justifiable) reaction to a human threat.

 

Natural threats, which can't be reasoned with, negotiated with or intimidated, place an even greater emphasis on results rather than the method taken to achieve them.

 

That needs to be understood more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Soup said:

If you don't mind media and government telling you lies then fair play. They obviously won't do it again will they. 

In this case, what lie? There was no lie. They literally explained where they were at each point over and over again in press conferences - the things they knew, the things they believed likely, the things they hoped and the things they didn’t know. There is literally no revelation here that I didn’t know at the time from listening to the information that was given. Don’t insult the rest of us just because you chose not to listen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Dunge said:

In this case, what lie? There was no lie. They literally explained where they were at each point over and over again in press conferences - the things they knew, the things they believed likely, the things they hoped and the things they didn’t know. There is literally no revelation here that I didn’t know at the time from listening to the information that was given. Don’t insult the rest of us just because you chose not to listen.

I'm not insulating anyone mate but if you think that I am then that explains a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-63296107

 

It's one thing to brutalise people in your own country, it's quite another, in a different country, to drag someone from outside embassy grounds into embassy grounds to do it there.

 

I hope there's a pretty stern diplomatic response.

Yup, the policeman who rescued him will get bollocked for trespassing on Chinese sovereign land probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
On 14/10/2022 at 18:46, BKLFox said:

Having read the latest topic i'll await the TV advert.." Did you suffer with sickness or do you know someone that died after receiving a covid vaccine, if so you could be entitled to........."

Good luck with that, did you not read the disclaimer you were handed when you took the vaccine?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Some international news:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63332077

 

For being a part of generating the circumstances that led to the death of an innocent woman (Heather Heyer), he should be facing much more jail time than this...but I guess contempt will have to d0.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-63328168

 

Good to see the Dunns getting a semblance of justice here - but only a semblance.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63338375

 

This could get very, very messy. Neither Carlsen nor Niemann backing down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...