Coronavirus

[Archied]

18 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, you're going to keep being childish and avoiding the question. Don't worry, I'll wait. 

Why wouldn’t you , happy to keep me waiting for your answer ,,,remember?..??????????

[maxjam]

21 minutes ago, Albert said:

...an industry not about epidemiology. 

It's got nothing to do with my 'narrative', he's just flat out wrong.

Although it is your opinion that he is wrong.  He seems to think he is right.  I'll look into it further ?

 

21 minutes ago, Albert said:

Prof. Gupta's work has been dismissed in her own field, and by reality itself. Her work is fringe in epidemiology, and her predictions were shown to be false through time. The 'great Barrington declaration' fell flat on its face for a reason.

It was ridiculed because it was opened up for signatories some of whom inevitably took the mick - and the media focussed on that.  It was however created by professors at Oxford, Harvard and Stanford and has been signed by thousands of epidemiologists and public health scientists.

It caused controversy as went against the political lockdown consensus and has now been suppressed by Google - you are far more likely to be recommended articles criticising TGBD than getting the article itself.

 

21 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not asking that you listen to me, or any individual on here. I'm asking that you listen to reality in this case, and the actual data. It's not a personality game, you need to actually read the research, and look into where claims are just outright incorrect, like so many in that video you posted, as well as others. 

 

The point of discussing qualifications is that appeals to authority, and getting all your news and information through singular sources, is a poor way of doing things. In modern science, is the point is consensus, and the body of research, not individuals. 

So no, don't listen to me, and don't listen to random unfacted checked videos that have literally been pulled for spreading disinformation. Read the actual literal, and look into what the consensus is, and why. 

Good, as I find your viewpoint particularly narrow minded. 

I posted the video for anyone that wanted to see another angle that is not widely talked about.  It was hardly a crank video from the likes of a David Icke but a well thought out argument that I will look into in the near future. 

I get my information from a wide range of sources then follow up to see if I agree with it or not.  From what I've read on here you seem to very easily dismiss articles or people you disagree with without challenging yourself to much as it goes against what you've been told.  In which case you're probably not going to like the results of this peer reviewed study that raises some good points of discussion;

 

 

Apologies for my gish gallop tactic of dropping info without discussion - although I have touched on it in the past when we argued over my nebulous use of 'multiple factors' when I argued it was impossible to compare how different countries coped with covid.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Archied said:

Why wouldn’t you , happy to keep me waiting for your answer ,,,remember?..??????????

Its ok, I've just provided him with my answer so sure you should get yours soon.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

He has no qualifications in epidemiology. 

Do you have any military connection and or background Albert ?

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Childish because I've pulled you up on spreading misinformation? I thought you was really against that?

Childish because I asked you a question, and you've point blank refused, while I was happy to answer yours. 

You've also found no misinformation, so I'm not sure what you're going on about. It seems you're just sick of being shown to be incorrect on here, so you're trying a cheap 'gotcha'. Poorly, but it seems to be what you're attempting. 

9 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance-havens-justice-network-dodging-a8933661.html

 

is this an example? 

I already provided them a number of examples. Their contention is that because they contribute in others ways, it doesn't represent no tax. This is a semantic difference they're attempting, but my initial claim is correct, and backed. I asked them a question regarding whether they felt that those contributions were enough, and they have since refused to answer, probably because they don't want to go on record saying they are. 

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, this does not back up a claim that large companies pay 'virtually no tax'

Try this:-

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

I'm not sure how you feel this invalidates the sources I provided for you before. This isn't really the thread for it, but it is a well established issue. 

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

Question wasn’t addressed to you but non the less your answer is illuminating as always ?????

What part of the question do you feel wasn't addressed? 

[Archied]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Its ok, I've just provided him with my answer so sure you should get yours soon.

Not a chance of that g ?????

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

Childish because I asked you a question, and you've point blank refused, while I was happy to answer yours. 

You've also found no misinformation, so I'm not sure what you're going on about. It seems you're just sick of being shown to be incorrect on here, so you're trying a cheap 'gotcha'. Poorly, but it seems to be what you're attempting. 

I already provided them a number of examples. Their contention is that because they contribute in others ways, it doesn't represent no tax. This is a semantic difference they're attempting, but my initial claim is correct, and backed. I asked them a question regarding whether they felt that those contributions were enough, and they have since refused to answer, probably because they don't want to go on record saying they are. 

I'm not sure how you feel this invalidates the sources I provided for you before. This isn't really the thread for it, but it is a well established issue. 

What part of the question do you feel wasn't addressed? 

Really really strange , in your answer regards the tax thing with g you keep referring to them ,ie you answered them ect ect ect ,, who’s the them you refer to?

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

Childish because I asked you a question, and you've point blank refused, while I was happy to answer yours. 

You've also found no misinformation, so I'm not sure what you're going on about. It seems you're just sick of being shown to be incorrect on here, so you're trying a cheap 'gotcha'. Poorly, but it seems to be what you're attempting. 

I already provided them a number of examples. Their contention is that because they contribute in others ways, it doesn't represent no tax. This is a semantic difference they're attempting, but my initial claim is correct, and backed. I asked them a question regarding whether they felt that those contributions were enough, and they have since refused to answer, probably because they don't want to go on record saying they are. 

I'm not sure how you feel this invalidates the sources I provided for you before. This isn't really the thread for it, but it is a well established issue. 

Sorry, not even what your question was?

Actually, I've just seen your question. If companies pay all taxes due then they have done their bit. If they are given loopholes that they exploit then I dont blame them.

Do you think all self employed people pay every penny of tax that they should?

You don't see how a link showing that in the Uk the top 100 companies contribute 11.7% of total Government receipts, invalidates your claim that they pay 'virtually no tax'? Well if ever we needed any more confirmation that you get an idea in your head and won't budge on it, you have just delivered it on a plate.

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, Archied said:

Why wouldn’t you , happy to keep me waiting for your answer ,,,remember?..??????????

What question do you want answered? You've not told me. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Although it is your opinion that he is wrong.  He seems to think he is right.  I'll look into it further ?

He has made literal false claims. It's not an 'opinion' thing. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It was ridiculed because it was opened up for signatories some of whom inevitably took the mick - and the media focussed on that.  It was however created by professors at Oxford, Harvard and Stanford and has been signed by thousands of epidemiologists and public health scientists.

It was ridiculed in academic circles for being based on weak fringe science at best, pseudoscience at worst. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It caused controversy as went against the political lockdown consensus and has now been suppressed by Google - you are far more likely to be recommended articles criticising TGBD than getting the article itself.

Disinformation surrounding it has been suppressed, but it itself was not. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Good, as I find your viewpoint particularly narrow minded. 

I posted the video for anyone that wanted to see another angle that is not widely talked about.  It was hardly a crank video from the likes of a David Icke but a well thought out argument that I will look into in the near future. 

I get my information from a wide range of sources then follow up to see if I agree with it or not.  From what I've read on here you seem to very easily dismiss articles or people you disagree with without challenging yourself to much as it goes against what you've been told.  In which case you're probably not going to like the results of this peer reviewed study that raises some good points of discussion;

I'm not 'easily dismissing' anything. I discussed, in detail, what was wrong with their position, and you've made no attempt to challenge that. You've just outright ignored it. Honestly, at this point your tactics are pretty transparent. You do a drop and run of disinformation, then say "see, it means there are other opinions out there".

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

They've characterised what changes the death rate, ie deaths per case. This doesn't disagree with anything I've previously discussed. Lockdowns should only have an impact on this in an already overwhelmed health system where the lockdown improves this side of the issue. What they're not saying is that lockdowns don't prevent deaths, we already know that strong public health measures can indeed push cases to zero, hence by definition prevent deaths from Covid-19. They aren't discussing this, though they do note that places where strict control on travel, particularly islands, did not allow the virus to become endemic. 

That is, this isn't arguing that lockdowns are futile at all, what it's arguing is that it isn't significantly changing the percentage of cases that die. That's not the point of lockdowns though, it's to reduce the number of cases overall. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Apologies for my gish gallop tactic of dropping info without discussion - although I have touched on it in the past when we argued over my nebulous use of 'multiple factors' when I argued it was impossible to compare how different countries coped with covid.

You basically just took random stabs at variables, and drop them rapidly when challenged. It wasn't about it being impossible to compare, and in fact, the paper you posted actually discusses the island effect for this disease, ie that islands have successfully closed their borders and prevented widespread infection. 

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, Archied said:

Really really strange , in your answer regards the tax thing with g you keep referring to them ,ie you answered them ect ect ect ,, who’s the them you refer to?

I was referring to G STAR RAM. 

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Sorry, not even what your question was?

Have you seriously lost track of what you're discussing that quickly?

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Actually, I've just seen your question. If companies pay all taxes due then they have done their bit. If they are given loopholes that they exploit then I dont blame them.

I don't blame the companies for using loopholes either, but it is a major issue that is endemic across the Western World. 

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Do you think all self employed people pay every penny of tax that they should?

We're not discussing that. 

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You don't see how a link showing that in the Uk the top 100 companies contribute 11.7% of total Government receipts, invalidates your claim that they pay 'virtually no tax'? Well if ever we needed any more confirmation that you get an idea in your head and won't budge on it, you have just delivered it on a plate.

For one, even if you showed that they were indeed paying their fair share in the UK, that would only be the case for the UK. As noted though, that doesn't change the figures that I already posted about the numbers paying an effective tax rate of 0%. 

Equally, fraction of government receipts isn't showing that they're paying as much as they should, it's just a raw figure. 

All this tangent has really shown is that you're just out to try and get a 'gotcha' on me, and quite frankly, given how far we're straying from the topic of conversation, we'll have to call it here. If you want to discuss this topic, maybe start a new thread. My point was valid, as demonstrated previously. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

I was referring to G STAR RAM. 

Have you seriously lost track of what you're discussing that quickly?

I don't blame the companies for using loopholes either, but it is a major issue that is endemic across the Western World. 

We're not discussing that. 

For one, even if you showed that they were indeed paying their fair share in the UK, that would only be the case for the UK. As noted though, that doesn't change the figures that I already posted about the numbers paying an effective tax rate of 0%. 

Equally, fraction of government receipts isn't showing that they're paying as much as they should, it's just a raw figure. 

All this tangent has really shown is that you're just out to try and get a 'gotcha' on me, and quite frankly, given how far we're straying from the topic of conversation, we'll have to call it here. If you want to discuss this topic, maybe start a new thread. My point was valid, as demonstrated previously. 

I only care about the UK, and as we were discussing funding of the NHS it is the only country that is relevant.

Your point was invalid, as I have demonstrated.

However, I will humour you because you clearly will not hold your hands up.

If we are worrying about tax receipts, why are you advocating closing down the economy further reducing tax receipts all for the sake of 'virtually any deaths' (using your metric of 11.7% being virtually any).

[Archied]

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

I was referring to G STAR RAM. 

Have you seriously lost track of what you're discussing that quickly?

I don't blame the companies for using loopholes either, but it is a major issue that is endemic across the Western World. 

We're not discussing that. 

For one, even if you showed that they were indeed paying their fair share in the UK, that would only be the case for the UK. As noted though, that doesn't change the figures that I already posted about the numbers paying an effective tax rate of 0%. 

Equally, fraction of government receipts isn't showing that they're paying as much as they should, it's just a raw figure. 

All this tangent has really shown is that you're just out to try and get a 'gotcha' on me, and quite frankly, given how far we're straying from the topic of conversation, we'll have to call it here. If you want to discuss this topic, maybe start a new thread. My point was valid, as demonstrated previously. 

So you describe g star ram as they and they’re ? You are really giving out that strange vibe that people used to get when automated and distant remote call centres were introduced ,it’s a bit freaky 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Archied said:

So you describe g star ram as they and they’re ? You are really giving out that strange vibe that people used to get when automated and distant remote call centres were introduced ,it’s a bit freaky 

Its ok, I'm a bit like Sam Smith.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

I only care about the UK, and as we were discussing funding of the NHS it is the only country that is relevant.

Your point was invalid, as I have demonstrated.

However, I will humour you because you clearly will not hold your hands up.

If we are worrying about tax receipts, why are you advocating closing down the economy further reducing tax receipts all for the sake of 'virtually any deaths' (using your metric of 11.7% being virtually any).

You like playing mix and match with your arguments. 

Where have I ever said I'm in favour the of the UK's approach? It's been a shambles from start to finish, and they delayed actioning advice of experts repeatedly. The current situation, with a fairly weak lockdown, has been brought about by those decisions. An earlier circuit breaker lockdown would have been shorter and more effective. 

As to 'not holding my hand up', you've not demonstrated my point at all, and you've still not answered whether you feel it's okay for there to be companies to have an effective tax rate of zero. No where did I claim it was all companies, nor did I claim there weren't other contributions from these companies. As noted the total fraction of tax receipts isn't proof against the point raised. 

The point with lockdowns is that done correctly, they should be short and sharp while other systems are sorted to get the reproductive number below 1. The UK didn't do this, and things got out of control. The answer from here is challenging, and as noted, I certainly don't have it. The situation is dire, and any and all action is non-ideal. At this point, the current lockdown seems to just about be serving its purpose, but I don't feel it's sustainable, and I don't know what the answer is for the UK. Having no lockdown is likely worse for lives and livelihoods though, so the UK is very much between a rock and a hard place as a result of this systematic mismanagement. The hope is that a vaccine, rolled out quickly and effectively, can get them out of this situation, or at least give the UK a paddle, but with the number of antivaxers coming out of the woodwork, that's no guarantee. 

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

Honestly, at this point your tactics are pretty transparent. You do a drop and run of disinformation, then say "see, it means there are other opinions out there".

Can't be bothered with the rest, its Saturday night the kids have gone to bed and its my turn on the PS5 ?

I spent days going round in circles with you earlier in the thread and tbh I'm not about to enter into a never ending debate with you again that you'll inevitably accuse me of running away from, despite the fact that even other people mentioned they were getting fed up with the constant back and forth.

To say I drop information and run however is wrong.  Unless I've missed something, this is a discussion forum not a dictatorship and I posted something that I personally thought was interesting - and figured others might be interested as well.

I haven't had chance to dissect it properly yet but I found it to be thought provoking - as an example, the bit about several countries having mild flu seasons last year with below average deaths which meant there were even more vulnerable people around this year and therefore higher than average deaths, especially in the older age bracket which is what we are seeing.  But hey dismiss all of it because it doesn't meet your criteria ?

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

So you describe g star ram as they and they’re ? You are really giving out that strange vibe that people used to get when automated and distant remote call centres were introduced ,it’s a bit freaky 

The use of singular they when people are unsure of someone's gender is fairly standard in English, and has been part of the language for around 600 years. 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Can't be bothered with the rest, its Saturday night the kids have gone to bed and its my turn on the PS5 ?

I spent days going round in circles with you earlier in the thread and tbh I'm not about to enter into a never ending debate with you again that you'll inevitably accuse me of running away from, despite the fact that even other people mentioned they were getting fed up with the constant back and forth.

There really was no 'back and forth' though, it was just you posting random ad hoc points, then legging it when they were discussed. The issue wasn't you getting fed up, it was you not building a coherent point at all. Now, you've just cut out the middle man, and are just doing the drop and run. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

To say I drop information and run however is wrong.  Unless I've missed something, this is a discussion forum not a dictatorship and I posted something that I personally thought was interesting - and figured others might be interested as well.

I'm not sure how this justifies your tactics as not being a 'drop and run'. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, I'm just saying it's a weak tactic. 

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

I haven't had chance to dissect it properly yet but I found it to be thought provoking - as an example, the bit about several countries having mild flu seasons last year with below average deaths which meant there were even more vulnerable people around this year and therefore higher than average deaths, especially in the older age bracket which is what we are seeing.  But hey dismiss all of it because it doesn't meet your criteria ?

The rate of people dying is far above even the worst flu seasons. Many countries also had harsh flu seasons last year, that includes the UK. Globally speaking, the 2017-18 and 2019-20 flu seasons have been some of the worst flu seasons in recent memory, and rates of the flu have only really dropped since the introduction of restrictions. This is why there was so much discussion of them before the pandemic kicked off, including here in Australia, where it was our worst on record.

As to why I dismissed their arguments, I covered that in detail.  

[Eddie]

24 minutes ago, Albert said:

Have you seriously lost track of what you're discussing that quickly?

Next time you want to retain the attention of certain individuals on here, try using a balloon on a stick.

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Next time you want to retain the attention of certain individuals on here, try using a balloon on a stick.

Its good to see that the Terry Waite of the forum hasnt lost his sense of humour!

[maxjam]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

There really was no 'back and forth' though, it was just you posting random ad hoc points, then legging it when they were discussed. The issue wasn't you getting fed up, it was you not building a coherent point at all. Now, you've just cut out the middle man, and are just doing the drop and run.

Nope I seem to recall posting numerous articles and stats to back up my arguments and we went around in circles for several days - go back and check.  The argument grew tedious and repetitive, not only was this mentioned several times in the thread but 2 very surprising people emailed me with messages of support.

Whilst I am happy to debate in this thread with others - although not tonight as this is already one more post than I wanted to make, I cba to reply to you any further as it rapidly becomes mind numbing war of attrition.

The last word is inevitably yours  ?