Coronavirus Thread

[SpacedX]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Edit: I'd suggest that @Line-X
approaches the level of scientific rigour demanded here.

That's very kind, but you have consistently proven to be far more able, measured and adept at scientific communication than myself.

 

4 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

Agreed; so for those in this thread who are consuming all the latest top-grade scientific fault from the faultless scientists can never be wrong. 

 

No one is suggesting that. It is the role of science to falsify and continually disprove itself. Scientists expect to be wrong. Edison famously observed, “I have not failed 700 times. I’ve succeeded in proving 700 ways how not to build a lightbulb.” Being "wrong" is not the same as being incompetent - where incompetence involves being both wrong and lacking the conceptual tools to discover that you are wrong, it’s absolutely fine to be wrong if you are able to realise your error and implement corrective action and learn from it. Thinking like a scientist involves the acknowledgement that you will frequently be wrong and knowing how to redress this and discover why. Science is a journey, and part of that journey is making errors and being empowered to make changes based on lessons learned. That is the basis of good experimental design and the importance of recognising limitations and establishing delimitations.

 

Such bias and allegations of careerist "scientists", who chase funding and are corrupted by agenda does unfortunately happen. But the data doesn't support the theory that the majority of scientists are consumed by conceit, arrogance or shameless self-promotion over the pursuit of the truth. As I have suggested innumerable times on here, there greatest acclaim and approbation goes to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it as opposed to the allure of corporate/institutional interest or pursuit of their own personal agenda. Ultimately it is the science itself that is the arbiter not the "scientists".

 

4 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

Except:

 

a) None of us are in that position and no one could be expected to be.

An observation that is reproducible and supported by demonstrable physical laws and axioms is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
 

4 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

b) Scientists actually often disagree; they might have the same data; but conclusions and projections don't have to be the same.

They don't - but again, it is the science itself that is ultimately the great leveller - as opposed to the "scientists". Scrutiny through peer review is still rigorous and although far from flawless, this independent sifting process offers a more stringent critique than any pre-publication referee.

 

In science if you can't adjust your theories to new data, the body of science will simply abandon you and the scientific method will expose you. Einstein himself refused to entertain some aspects of quantum mechanics, and the field simply moved on without him.

 

There are more theories consigned to early burial in the graveyard of science than theories that stand the test of time. Why? Because new data is always emerging and theories may have to be adjusted. Theories give a best guess at what is going on based on things we observe (data), but they are not immutable. If you only have limited data points, then your working theory is more likely to turn out to be wrong. 

 

Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. For example, atmospheric physics theory that goes back to the late 1800's and early 1900s established that small amounts contributions of carbon dioxide can warm the atmosphere. 

 

I also notice that some people tend to confuse or conflate "hypothesis" and "theory." A hypothesis is an idea that is offered or assumed with the intent of being tested. A theory is intended to explain processes already supported or substantiated by data and experimentation.

 

We know the outcomes that are expected to happen as greenhouse gases increase within the atmosphere.. Therefore, the greenhouse theory of climate change has reached the crucial stage of verification. However - as you say, scientists will disagree upon the rate and rapidity of this and projections will vary which is to be expected.

 

5 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

This is very much the danger in assuming there is absolute fact and that the opinion you choose to believe is the one which is fact (and everyone else's is a lie) 

Science is not about assumption and what you are referring to is subjectivity. Returning to theory, there are two senses of the word which I maintain are problematic. These are those which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena”, or simply - “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory" implying that it is no more than speculation or conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word.

 

Theories and projections may differ, but they must each be proven, independently verifiable and backed by repeated observation and data to become objective fact. In science, aspersions have been cast on the notion of absolutes by theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics and all truths are approximations. However, some scientific principles are so well established and robustly supported by so many lines of evidence, they are unlikely to be completely overturned.

 

Finally - It isn't about "scientists".

 

Science is humbling and should be the preserve of the humble and accepts its limitations. You'll find that the rampant populist opinion that is a hallmark of social media and the Dunning-Kruger afflicted era that we inhabit, is sadly completely the reverse.

[Buce]

@leicsmac, @Line-X

 

I believe they have rooms available at the Holiday Inn...

[SpacedX]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

@leicsmac, @Line-X

 

I believe they have rooms available at the Holiday Inn...

Travel Lodge was the extent of my budget unfortunately. 

[z-layrex]

On 21/09/2021 at 17:29, SystonFox said:

Man I feel woeful. Done two LFT both negative but it’s like I’ve been hit by a bus. Headaches, body aches, deep chesty cough, blocked nose etc.

 

prpbably a cold but I’ve not had one in so long I’ve no idea what it felt like before 

There's a really nasty virus going round, we have lots of nurses off sick, not covid. Feel better soon.

Edited 1 October 2021 by z-layrex

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, z-layrex said:

There's a really nasty virus going round, we have lots of nurses off sick, not covid. Feel better soon.

And there was a similar virus circulating Dec/jan/feb ahead of the first outbreak. Many think they had covid back then but they didn’t …

[Buce]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

Travel Lodge was the extent of my budget unfortunately. 

 

"What do we want?"

"A fair day's pay for a fair day's boffining!"

"When do we want it?"

"After we have a peer-reviewed viability analysis!"

 

 

Edited 1 October 2021 by Buce

[The People's Hero]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I understand this epistemological argument and it has merit, but if you follow it to its logical conclusion then no one can be certain enough of anything to do anything.

 

Not great when a virus is rampaging through a population and the global temperature is rising horribly.

 

At some point, you have to trust the conclusions that you have made and act on them - and the scientific method allows us to do that.

 

Edit: I'd suggest that @Line-X
approaches the level of scientific rigour demanded here.

So if two scientists (who I think we've established are beyond reproach and must be trusted regardless) have polar opposite views having studied the same date; which one do you believe? After all, both of them have to be right?
 

THERE IS NOT COMPLETE CONSENSUS ON MANY THINGS AMONST THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. 

 

I can't believe I've been coaxed back. I'm going to go and have a lie down whilst you all collude to find another way to patronise and dismiss anyone willing to think for themselves.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, The People's Hero said:

So if two scientists (who I think we've established are beyond reproach and must be trusted regardless) have polar opposite views having studied the same date; which one do you believe? After all, both of them have to be right?
 

THERE IS NOT COMPLETE CONSENSUS ON MANY THINGS AMONST THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. 

 

I can't believe I've been coaxed back. I'm going to go and have a lie down whilst you all collude to find another way to patronise and dismiss anyone willing to think for themselves.

The one that has passed peer review, naturally. If there is an example of two scientific studies showing absolutely opposite results having both passed peer review with equal confidence, I'd like to see it.

 

It's not my intent to be confrontational here, you've clearly got a good philosophical mind, nor is it my intent to stop anyone from "thinking for themselves". However, a world where no one is invalidated but no one is right is the way the world ends. 

 

 

[The People's Hero]

Climate change is an area where many respected scientists have interpreted the exact same data in completely different ways.

 

This is my truth. Tell me yours?
 

I'm not trying to be confrontational either; I'm just not entirely sure where the confidence comes from. I think if you asked them to be brutally honest on Covid19; most scientists would admit that a) they don't really know and b) lots of the 'facts', projections and modelling put out by well respected scientists has been shown to be complete guff.

 

Granted its much better than the facebook idiots and conspiracy theorist loons; but I think that goes without saying.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Climate change is an area where many respected scientists have interpreted the exact same data in completely different ways.

 

This is my truth. Tell me yours?
 

I'm not trying to be confrontational either; I'm just not entirely sure where the confidence comes from. I think if you asked them to be brutally honest on Covid19; most scientists would admit that a) they don't really know and b) lots of the 'facts', projections and modelling put out by well respected scientists has been shown to be complete guff.

 

Granted its much better than the facebook idiots and conspiracy theorist loons; but I think that goes without saying.

Fair enough.

 

Personally I think we know a fair bit more about climate change and how that might play out than Covid, given the respective timeframes we've had to research each one, and I do think there's a broad scientific consensus there, but that's me.

 

I'm confident in the scientists figuring these things out not because of any blind faith in them, but because I think they represent the best stab at the truth that we have at the present time - and if and when we find out more information to draw different conclusions, that truth and how we should act on it could change.

 

In the case of climate change on my part, I guess you might call it a call to urgency rather than confidence, because if the current information we have is correct then time is a critical factor and we don't really have much more of it to increase our level of certainty beyond what it already is and not act upon what we know. That tends to be why I take the line of "we might discuss this, but the certainty is good enough for me and we need to act much much more" on the topic on here.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

So if two scientists (who I think we've established are beyond reproach and must be trusted regardless) have polar opposite views having studied the same date; which one do you believe? After all, both of them have to be right?
 

THERE IS NOT COMPLETE CONSENSUS ON MANY THINGS AMONST THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. 

 

I can't believe I've been coaxed back. I'm going to go and have a lie down whilst you all collude to find another way to patronise and dismiss anyone willing to think for themselves.

Science is not about "belief". 

 

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

whilst you all collude to find another way to patronise and dismiss anyone willing to think for themselves.

No one is patronising and dismissing anyone willing to genuinely "think for themselves" through informed critical thinking and genuine scepticism, requiring objective appraisal and deferral to the independently verifiable. Unfortunately, the populist opinion and confirmation bias and misinformation that has frequently surfaced on this thread under the pretence of "thinking for yourself" has been the result of disinformation, emotional investment, pseudoscience and personal agenda. Some people dislike the implications scientific findings have for their ideology, worldview or other self-interest, and refuse to accept the science. In these cases the information-deficit model of science communication is ineffective. I can provide ample examples from this thread alone if you wish.

 

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

Climate change is an area where many respected scientists have interpreted the exact same data in completely different ways.

 

I intentionally broached this this in my reply to you - and it is not in "completely different ways". The Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s. That human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause is indeed the "consensus" and the consilience of evidence supports this. As is the warning that continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects. There are differing projections as to the rate, rapidity and extent of these changes which is to be expected.

 

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

 I think if you asked them to be brutally honest on Covid19; most scientists would admit that a) they don't really know 

 

Once again, if I may stress the difference between "science" and "scientists" - something I have repeatedly attempted to get across throughout this thread.

 

"Don't really know" what? As I mentioned before it is the job of the scientist not to presume to know, but to progress through a series of errors. One of the challenges for understanding Covid-19 is that all the science has been instantly conducted under a spotlight of intense scrutiny. Whether it's a breakthrough in cancer treatment, neurology, or a discovery about water on Mars, as @leicsmac mentioned, this will be presented via publication in a peer-reviewed journal that was submitted months before. The actual science predicating this would have been performed at a bench, through an MRI machine or on a planetary surface long before that and often over a period of years. As this scientific enquiry proceeds and evolves through publication - although transparent  it's simply something that the lay community rarely pay attention to unless a major advancement of finding is publicised. Where the current pandemic differs, is that the public, governments, the media have experienced science at its frontiers. At the border between the known and the unknown, research is nebulous - often a confusing farrago of ostensibly conflicting and contradictory data. As I discussed in a previous post, human fallibility is an expectation and bias is possible ("scientists") - although the latter is not as commonplace as suggested. Ultimately this is how we find out how the world operates ("science"), and how we forge a greater understanding as a species. Long term, we can place our trust that as a shared endeavour, science has inbuilt intrinsic self-correcting measures and mechanisms embedded within it. Findings are tested and re-tested, found to be reproducible or not, subsequently defended and incrementally, study-by-study a clearer, slightly truer picture of the world emerges. As I am always eager to remind aspiring PhD students, research is a long game - there is rarely an overnight reward. 

 

Can I suggest that you please invest just a few minutes of your time reading this?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0894-x

 

There are many things that science can tell us about Covid. For example, it is a respiratory zoonotic disease and part of the coronavirus family. The virus doesn't limit itself to damaging the lungs. It can infect the cells that line blood vessels and affect a range of other important organs, such as the heart, brain, kidneys, liver, pancreas and spleen. The virus spreads exponentially and asymptomatically. Vaccine scientists have delivered effective vaccines that had been rigorously tested in trials but these do not prevent transmission. Basic hygiene, good ventilation indoors and the wearing of an approved well fitted face mask will reduce transmission and contraction - as will social distancing. Some that are frequently fond of claiming to "think for themselves" would insist they know better.

 

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

b) lots of the 'facts', projections and modelling put out by well respected scientists has been shown to be complete guff.

Predictive mathematical models of a pandemic are a black art. A proliferation of models, often diverging widely in their projections, has been accompanied by criticism of the validity of modeled analyses and uncertainty as to when and to what extent results can be trusted. I believe that is largely what you are justifiably referring to. Governments across the planet have then relied upon these mathematical projections to guide policy during this pandemic. Computer simulations account for only a fraction of the data analyses that modelling teams have performed in the crisis and much information about how SARS-CoV-2 spreads is still unknown and must be estimated which limits the precision of forecasts. 

 

2 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

THERE IS NOT COMPLETE CONSENSUS ON MANY THINGS AMONST THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. 

Which is how it moves forward. It's a great shame that in fast polarising populist circles and politics that the dialectical method is dead.

 

Incidentally, your caps lock appears to be intermittently jamming. 

[The People's Hero]

Spare me the book next time; I've read all that and many of my points have just been side-stepped here. I'm beginning to believe you have a word document repository of condescending, fairly meaningless paragraphs and just select one at random to answer any point made.

 

Let's just agree to disagree and ponder and lament the fact that its a shame that given the infalliability of science, we still have problems such as the climate crisis, pandemics, famine etc etc. 

 

Forgive us mere mortals for daring to show interest or raise a question. Still; at least if any of us feel the need to be belittled and patronised, we know exactly where to come.

[SpacedX]

17 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Spare me the book next time; I've read all that and many of my points have just been side-stepped here. I'm beginning to believe you have a word document repository of condescending, fairly meaningless paragraphs and just select one at random to answer any point made.

 

Let's just agree to disagree and ponder and lament the fact that its a shame that given the infalliability of science, we still have problems such as the climate crisis, pandemics, famine etc etc. 

 

Forgive us mere mortals for daring to show interest or raise a question. Still; at least if any of us feel the need to be belittled and patronised, we know exactly where to come.

Blimey - what a strange response. That wasn't my intention at all - you don't normally seem this sensitive. The length of the post is solely because I took an interest in your comments, that's all, no belittlement and I have no idea why you claim that? I welcome the points that you raise which are very valid and pertinent. 

 

Condescension? How's this -

 

On 30/09/2021 at 10:41, The People's Hero said:

I can't believe I've just typed all that out. Its all just a jumble of letters to you lot isn't it? 

 

[The People's Hero]

I was frustrated because its just an echo chamber in here. Unless you agree with the selected Foxestalk illuminati position; then don't bother. Meanwhilst those in the little club just become more and more convinced they are right because everyone without a pHd or 2 hours to write out really long posts has got bored and drifted off away from the thread.

 

I do just find it odd that despite the scientific community response to some of the issues raised being pretty uninspiring, in my view, and the issues remaining unsolved, the suggestion that these people are not infalliable does provoke a quite odd defensive response.

 

I genuinely don't know everything about Covid19; and I am surprised that seemingly about 20% of the world's knowledge on it is possessed on one football forum (of a few) for one football team (of many) in one country (of many).

 

 

[leicsmac]

Scientists are fallible - that's what peer review is for. And of course the process beyond such peer review and the scientific method itself is only human.

 

I would hope that no one is going to claim that it is perfect, because it clearly isn't - nothing human could be. But it is, at least right now, the best way we have of understanding the world around us and also defending ourselves against the many threats it poses.

 

NB. Perhaps this is overly defensive but I'm thinking the majority of blame regarding lack of progress on issues like climate change isn't down to what we know about it, it's down to politics and people not liking the idea of change, especially drastic change.

[SpacedX]

10 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I was frustrated because its just an echo chamber in here. Unless you agree with the selected Foxestalk illuminati position; then don't bother. Meanwhilst those in the little club just become more and more convinced they are right because everyone without a pHd or 2 hours to write out really long posts has got bored and drifted off away from the thread.

Absolutely not - and if you had paused to peer through the red mist you would have seen that I was acknowledging many of your points. You raised valid questions that can require detailed responses that's all. 

 

11 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I was frustrated because its just an echo chamber in here. Unless you agree with the selected Foxestalk illuminati position; then don't bother. Meanwhilst those in the little club just become more and more convinced they are right because everyone without a pHd or 2 hours to write out really long posts has got bored and drifted off away from the thread.

 

Science is not performed in an "echo-chamber" - that is precisely the point I have been making. The similarities in responses that you detect are nothing to do with the members posting, rather, independently verifiable established fact. When someone claiming to "think for themselves" posts that "it has been scientifically proven that facemasks don't work", "lockdowns don't work" or "Covid-19 is no different to the flu" - you'll find that it almost invariably has its origins in the online echo-chamber you refer to and of course it is going to be challenged. 

 

17 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I do just find it odd that despite the scientific community response to some of the issues raised being pretty uninspiring, in my view, and the issues remaining unsolved, the suggestion that these people are not infalliable does provoke a quite odd defensive response.

 But scientists are not "infallible" - that's the point - and one I have repeatedly made in my replies to you.

 

20 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I genuinely don't know everything about Covid19; and I am surprised that seemingly about 20% of the world's knowledge on it is possessed on one football forum (of a few) for one football team (of many) in one country (of many).

Neither do scientists for the reasons I stated earlier. However, the known science that is posted in this forum is nothing to do with me or those that post it, rather self-evident and objectively/ independently verifiable. Conversely those individuals that presume to know, are frequently the ones that find it necessary to claim that they can "think for themselves".

 

Can I return to this please? - and again exhort/encourage you to take a few minutes to read it. It addresses many of the original points that you made far more succinctly than I have. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0894-x

 

 

 

[The People's Hero]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

NB. Perhaps this is overly defensive but I'm thinking the majority of blame regarding lack of progress on issues like climate change isn't down to what we know about it, it's down to politics and people not liking the idea of change, especially drastic change.

 

I would 100%  agree with you and perhaps that suggests that keeping any discussion to a ruthless focus on 'the science' isn't likely to solve anything, whilst there are other, more significant barriers to overcome.

 

 

[The People's Hero]

I should say as well, @Line-X that you do write very well.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

 

I would 100%  agree with you and perhaps that suggests that keeping any discussion to a ruthless focus on 'the science' isn't likely to solve anything, whilst there are other, more significant barriers to overcome.

 

 

Yep. What we do about such stuff is as important if not more important as what we know about it in the first place. That's why I want to get more involved in science communication.

 

From what I can tell the cardinal rule about such things is making the issue about whoever you're addressing and saying what's in it for them. Make it personal, and they're more likely to be good with policy based on it.

[The People's Hero]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Absolutely not - and if you had paused to peer through the red mist you would have seen that I was acknowledging many of your points. You raised valid questions that can require detailed responses that's all. 

 

Science is not performed in an "echo-chamber" - that is precisely the point I have been making. The similarities in responses that you detect are nothing to do with the members posting, rather, independently verifiable established fact. When someone claiming to "think for themselves" posts that "it has been scientifically proven that facemasks don't work", "lockdowns don't work" or "Covid-19 is no different to the flu" - you'll find that it almost invariably has its origins in the online echo-chamber you refer to and of course it is going to be challenged. 

 

 But scientists are not "infallible" - that's the point - and one I have repeatedly made in my replies to you.

 

Neither do scientists for the reasons I stated earlier. However, the known science that is posted in this forum is nothing to do with me or those that post it, rather self-evident and objectively/ independently verifiable. Conversely those individuals that presume to know, are frequently the ones that find it necessary to claim that they can "think for themselves".

 

Can I return to this please? - and again exhort/encourage you to take a few minutes to read it. It addresses many of the original points that you made far more succinctly than I have. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0894-x

 

 

 

 

I thought I had replied! Its either been quickly deleted, vanished in to the ether or perhaps I never clicked to submit the reply.

 

I found the article interesting and it does touch on some ideas I'd presented previously in this thread; where I suggested science could often be used and politicised in unhelpful ways; ie selective use of data or selectively picking the advice that fits your own discourse/agenda/position from the range of scientific advisory bodies available.  To use a bit of a clumsy insurance analogy (my trade; as you can tell, I'm no scientist, never had the brains) - you can give risk information to one underwriter and you'll get one quote/answer, give the same risk information to 10 underwriters in one room and you'll no doubt get 100 quotes and answers; which is my clumsy way of saying that the same 'advisory committees' might work with the same data, but will likely come up with different predictions/models and advice and then this can be politicised by selectively ignoring some whilst pushing others.

 

My point about the echo chamber was really this thread and not about science in general. Its quite a narrow view now being presented here- and a well informed one, obviously, but it is an echo chamber nonetheless. It isn't to say anything being said is inaccurate, incorrect or misleading, but also I think its important that we all appreciate that no one truly comes at any issue and forms any opinion without at least a little agenda, discourse, pre-conception or self-interest.

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

Climate change is an area where many respected scientists have interpreted the exact same data in completely different ways.

 

This is my truth. Tell me yours?
 

I'm not trying to be confrontational either; I'm just not entirely sure where the confidence comes from. I think if you asked them to be brutally honest on Covid19; most scientists would admit that a) they don't really know and b) lots of the 'facts', projections and modelling put out by well respected scientists has been shown to be complete guff.

 

Granted its much better than the facebook idiots and conspiracy theorist loons; but I think that goes without saying.

Quite a few virologists in UK & Europe...have been upfront, said that "our individual & Cross groups have come up with a couple of & Not 10s of approaches,

but in Honesty..WE  JUST DONT KNOW how others,media,Politicians or other organisations follow that up & Play with the figures, is their own doing ,Plus

we  obviously learn more on each passing period , but not on every passing day"

 

Some more serious balanced..Government Health Insititutes, will regularly put These statements on their stieß & Show Open interviews,

without adding any contradictary remarks....o

 

Mainly  my View ,its the public & Front-line Politicians, who like Football forums, make up their own mind, and agenda to suit their own off-tangent dialogs..

There is a several of telling figures...That you cant hide, turn to your own  argumentative benifit,

No chance conspiracies:-

Simple numbers...

# How Full ICUs

# Lack of ICUs

# Lack of trained or untrained staff..

# Re-coping, with Any new Covid hights/peaks in numbers

# Admins Not able to cope, Ressources & politically

# Lack of all-round rescources

# Not enough Hospital-space to treat, other Medical problems...

# Oh & yes...Obviously some fully vaccined patients, will still get covid, But its brought down the totals of deaths, & an  ICU dependancy..

   Oh Covid has After effects, so will the odd vaccined ..But its all about percentages...

 

Nurses and Medical staff cant be nobbled and rail-roded into Political nonsense merry-go-rounds...

They are too Damn tired , Disillusioned, & hard singularly motivated to bother...with controversy-crap

 

All These doubters, kontroverse -theories just have to get to know & listen to your neighbourly nurses, dep.Doctors 

Life is the Bullshit und deaf-ears, you use to accompany to make your own journey...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Super_horns]

Sad to read.

 

Poor girl and obviously her family .

 

Just shows COVID is a danger for all ages still.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-58772671

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Sad to read.

 

Poor girl and obviously her family .

 

Just shows COVID is a danger for all ages still.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-58772671

The anti brigade will say that she would have had an equally dangerous myocardial reaction to the jab …… it’s so very sad but a tough argument to win 

 

we are headed into interesting times ref footballers and vaccines 

 

those going to red list countries over the next couple weeks on int duty will either find themselves mysteriously injured and unable to go or mysteriously injured on their return (which won’t happen as they will go to a third country to continue training rather than be holed up in a hotel room for ten days).  Whilst we cannot know who has refused to be jabbed, we will certainly gain an insight on some over the next two int breaks ….

 

our two who are possibles in this regard are patson and cags 

[pazzerfox]

This topic genuinely makes my head hurt.  I read articles where some doctors explain how everyone needs to get the jab to make everyone safe, some doctors say they've examined the contents to find toxic elements contained.

 

I read how all this is a massive conspiracy and how the top 1% are colluding to enforce us into a population cull, a hunger games society, crash of the economy and dependency on the state, then i read about how young, healthy people have died from Covid.  Then how people have died from the jab, then how the mainstream media are controlled by the elite to push out the same narrative.

 

Then i watch a video about how safe and effective the vaccines are and how face masks help to stop transmission, then i read that face masks are pointless so theres no need to wear them.

 

It really is a mindfield.

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, pazzerfox said:

This topic genuinely makes my head hurt.  I read articles where some doctors explain how everyone needs to get the jab to make everyone safe, some doctors say they've examined the contents to find toxic elements contained.

 

I read how all this is a massive conspiracy and how the top 1% are colluding to enforce us into a population cull, a hunger games society, crash of the economy and dependency on the state, then i read about how young, healthy people have died from Covid.  Then how people have died from the jab, then how the mainstream media are controlled by the elite to push out the same narrative.

 

Then i watch a video about how safe and effective the vaccines are and how face masks help to stop transmission, then i read that face masks are pointless so theres no need to wear them.

 

It really is a mindfield.

Save yourself the bother.

 

Get the vaccine and carry on with your life.