Coronavirus

[Archied]

7 hours ago, jimmyp said:

Yes that’s cool, I need you not to presume I’m saying something if I haven’t said it though. 

Im not sure what I’m giving out other than answering your questions and making conversation. 

Well your stuff around Eddie was cryptic at best , the problem with this topic ( myself included ) is that it’s descended into a gotcha game rather than anybody being able to talk properly, this whole misinformation guff is another part of it , we can trust Eddie enough to be sensible around and perhaps breaking them ( rules) but we can’t trust people to read , see hear stuff and form opinion

I feel for Eddie , I really do but as someone who has followed the rules but been given so much stick for just arguing that what is going on is very wrong on so many levels I find the picking and choosing of what’s ok to do and not ok to do pretty offensive,

Eddie as far as I’m concerned break the rules a bit , they are just plain stupid in lots of areas and make no sense ,they are against everything we are as humans , divisive to family and community’s,,, BUT you really need to look at your stance and treatment of others

[Albert]

10 hours ago, Archied said:

Right sick to the back teeth of you lopsided rubbish , someone like Mike yeadon is just making a quick buck off the backs of people’s misery and the only people qualified to speak about the whole issue of Covid and it’s issues are epidemiologists,

The issue with Yeadon's stuff that was posted is that it was literal disinformation. The guy could be well qualified and it'd be the same. He made false claims, and stated fallacies to try and convince an audience. 

10 hours ago, Archied said:

Almost our whole team at the top including experts and politicians are littered with conflicts of interests and crony pocket lining .

Did I ever suggest otherwise? The point isn't about the UK's team behind the decisions though, as we know the UK has handled this appallingly. The point is what the consensus of the scientific community is, and at the very least making sure we're sticking to what is actually happening. As noted, the issue with someone like Yeadon is that he's claiming things that just aren't true. 

10 hours ago, Archied said:

you don’t even live in this country and you want to come and tell us what we should and shouldn’t be thinking and feeling ,

I'm not telling you what you should be feeling. I am discussing what the facts of the case are though. 

10 hours ago, Archied said:

your just a propaganda machine spewing out the same lines over and over 

Says someone who is consistently railing against point after point, with no counter, because they don't like what's being said. 

[Archied]

18 minutes ago, Albert said:

The issue with Yeadon's stuff that was posted is that it was literal disinformation. The guy could be well qualified and it'd be the same. He made false claims, and stated fallacies to try and convince an audience. 

Did I ever suggest otherwise? The point isn't about the UK's team behind the decisions though, as we know the UK has handled this appallingly. The point is what the consensus of the scientific community is, and at the very least making sure we're sticking to what is actually happening. As noted, the issue with someone like Yeadon is that he's claiming things that just aren't true. 

I'm not telling you what you should be feeling. I am discussing what the facts of the case are though. 

Says someone who is consistently railing against point after point, with no counter, because they don't like what's being said. 

This corona virus ,like all areas of medicine overlap and intertwine so I’m ok to listen to stuff from highly qualified highly respected scientists and medical people ( yeadon and others) not just epidemiologists ,modellers and number crunchers who also have egos and poss conflict of interests of the type you put on others who don’t fit with your narrative ,

 

[Sith Happens]

[Albert]

27 minutes ago, Archied said:

This corona virus ,like all areas of medicine overlap and intertwine so I’m ok to listen to stuff from highly qualified highly respected scientists and medical people ( yeadon and others) not just epidemiologists ,modellers and number crunchers who also have egos and poss conflict of interests of the type you put on others who don’t fit with your narrative ,

So, you'd listen to someone unqualified in the field. That's lovely and all, but what about the key concern here. That is, the claims he made were simply false, and easy to show as such? Why does this not concern you? 

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

So, you'd listen to someone unqualified in the field. That's lovely and all, but what about the key concern here. That is, the claims he made were simply false, and easy to show as such? Why does this not concern you? 

I think he's saying that he doesn't believe that what we're being told is the truth, is the truth.

That's why I posted the "peer review" picture. If you don't accept that showing your workings to the wider audience of people in your field, for open criticism and deconstruction of the methodology is the best way of determining "truth", it doesn't matter what arguments we show. You can just say "I don't believe it" and ignore all the evidence whether the data backs up or refutes your argument altogether.

Truth has become subjective, in some circles.

[Albert]

Just now, GboroRam said:

I think he's saying that he doesn't believe that what we're being told is the truth, is the truth.

That's why I posted the "peer review" picture. If you don't accept that showing your workings to the wider audience of people in your field, for open criticism and deconstruction of the methodology is the best way of determining "truth", it doesn't matter what arguments we show. You can just say "I don't believe it" and ignore all the evidence whether the data backs up or refutes your argument altogether.

Truth has become subjective, in some circles.

Fair enough.

I guess I've given them too much time in that case. I guess working from the assumption that any other parties discussing a topic can accept the basic facts of the case isn't the best one to start from in this case. 

[G STAR RAM]

12 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

This christmas thing feels like more ineptitude by the government - why 5 days? could have been 24-26th and people would have accepted it. Strikes me. they are trying to win back some of the goodwill they've lost from their core vote by making such a massive hash of almost everything about this pandemic

You are Nicola Sturgeon and I claim my £5.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Well your stuff around Eddie was cryptic at best , the problem with this topic ( myself included ) is that it’s descended into a gotcha game rather than anybody being able to talk properly, this whole misinformation guff is another part of it , we can trust Eddie enough to be sensible around and perhaps breaking them ( rules) but we can’t trust people to read , see hear stuff and form opinion

I feel for Eddie , I really do but as someone who has followed the rules but been given so much stick for just arguing that what is going on is very wrong on so many levels I find the picking and choosing of what’s ok to do and not ok to do pretty offensive,

Eddie as far as I’m concerned break the rules a bit , they are just plain stupid in lots of areas and make no sense ,they are against everything we are as humans , divisive to family and community’s,,, BUT you really need to look at your stance and treatment of others

Cheers.

As it transpires, I'm not sure that what I'm proposing actually does break the rules, since my daughter, grandson and her partner have already formed a childcare support bubble with Alison and my granddaughter, so  (I think) that only counts as one household. The Memsahib and I are a household and my son makes three.

I am somewhat fractious at times, especially on the outside, but deep down, inside, where it really matters, I'm still a cantankerous old git when it comes to anything really. 

[Archied]

34 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, you'd listen to someone unqualified in the field. That's lovely and all, but what about the key concern here. That is, the claims he made were simply false, and easy to show as such? Why does this not concern you? 

Ok the claims are easily disproved( in your view) what concerns you in them being posted and easily disproved in the open ?

should the yeadon video be banned from this forum and everywhere else?

the same for any and all content that you decide is misinformation?

an elderly lady being arrested and manhandled into a van by police officers for peacefully protesting lock down policy ( she was outside) has surfaced and been questioned in parliament by an mp that witnessed it ,,, no taking the knee there?‍♂️,

this is the kind of world you support/ endorse with your stance???

 

[Anag Ram]

I think I’d like a bit more plain talking. So much of what is said by the government is woolly and open to interpretation.

I’d like Boris to say ‘Look, nobody objects to families who are asymptomatic getting together this Christmas if they are careful and abide by the rules of social distance, hand washing and where vulnerable people are involved, the wearing of masks.

This is not the time to be getting drunk and loosening the way in which we interact. So no wild parties. That’s how disease spreads.

Keep to the rules and we can at least get together, even if there’s no hugging or kissing like there might be normally. I know it’s not perfect but it’s better than no Christmas at all.

When you’ve met other families, please stay at home for a few days, just in case, so we can at least mitigate the chance of a spread of the disease.’

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Cheers.

As it transpires, I'm not sure that what I'm proposing actually does break the rules, since my daughter, grandson and her partner have already formed a childcare support bubble with Alison and my granddaughter, so  (I think) that only counts as one household. The Memsahib and I are a household and my son makes three.

I am somewhat fractious at times, especially on the outside, but deep down, inside, where it really matters, I'm still a cantankerous old git when it comes to anything really. 

Eddie I know that and am far from without fault myself that is why we are able to argue like cat and dog but still at time s agree and have empathy for each other in the main when it counts ,this is a position I am unable to find with Albert and his posts and that rings alarm bells for me as someone who very rarely can’t find a middle ground or at least an understanding of others

[Sith Happens]

6 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

I think I’d like a bit more plain talking. So much of what is said by the government is woolly and open to interpretation.

I’d like Boris to say ‘Look, nobody objects to families who are asymptomatic getting together this Christmas if they are careful and abide by the rules of social distance, hand washing and where vulnerable people are involved, the wearing of masks.

This is not the time to be getting drunk and loosening the way in which we interact. So no wild parties. That’s how disease spreads.

Keep to the rules and we can at least get together, even if there’s no hugging or kissing like there might be normally. I know it’s not perfect but it’s better than no Christmas at all.

When you’ve met other families, please stay at home for a few days, just in case, so we can at least mitigate the chance of a spread of the disease.’

It would be nice if they could use a simple 'Please use common sense' approach. Sadly many of the great british public have demonstrated they have a clear lack of it during the pandemic.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

I think he's saying that he doesn't believe that what we're being told is the truth, is the truth.

That's why I posted the "peer review" picture. If you don't accept that showing your workings to the wider audience of people in your field, for open criticism and deconstruction of the methodology is the best way of determining "truth", it doesn't matter what arguments we show. You can just say "I don't believe it" and ignore all the evidence whether the data backs up or refutes your argument altogether.

Truth has become subjective, in some circles.

Just as a matter of interest how much scientific and medical advance do think has been made by people who flew in the face of they’re peers and other favoured experts of they’re time even in fields that may not have been considered they’re field of expertise?

[Stive Pesley]

11 minutes ago, Archied said:

Just as a matter of interest how much scientific and medical advance do think has been made by people who flew in the face of they’re peers and other favoured experts of they’re time even in fields that may not have been considered they’re field of expertise?

Plenty for sure - but of course the point at which the advances were accepted was when they were peer reviewed and shown to be true

I think you'll be waiting a long time for the grifters to get their YouTube misinformation peer-reviewed - not least because they have zero interest in that process. That ain't where the money is.

Be careful down the rabit hole mate

[Albert]

29 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok the claims are easily disproved( in your view) what concerns you in them being posted and easily disproved in the open ?

Because a lot of people don't do that fact checking, and spreading disinformation can be dangerous. 

Quote

should the yeadon video be banned from this forum and everywhere else?

Well, that video was removed from youtube for disinformation. That seems a fair way of dealing with the concern. 

Quote

the same for any and all content that you decide is misinformation?

I'm not the one who decided. But yes, if information fails basic fact checking requirements, particularly about such a sensitive topic, then people should avoid publishing it. In the case of media giants, this would mean removing it from their platforms. Those people can go posting elsewhere of course, but it makes sense for those large platforms to not give them a stage. 

Quote

an elderly lady being arrested and manhandled into a van by police officers for peacefully protesting lock down policy ( she was outside) has surfaced and been questioned in parliament by an mp that witnessed it ,,, no taking the knee there?‍♂️,

I don't know the facts of the case, so I don't feel it's my place to comment. 

Quote

this is the kind of world you support/ endorse with your stance???

 

I don't think you understand the difference between private media platforms and government. Media platforms are private entities, and have the right of choice as to what is hosted, much like here. It is very different for a media platform to not give someone a platform to share their views, and a government to forcibly stop someone. I don't know the facts of the case you're noting above, so again, I won't comment on that, but it's a very different story. 

To put it another way, a newspaper declining to publish your rant about how the country is run by lizard people is not censorship, the government locking you up indefinitely for having said it is. 

13 minutes ago, Archied said:

Just as a matter of interest how much scientific and medical advance do think has been made by people who flew in the face of they’re peers and other favoured experts of they’re time even in fields that may not have been considered they’re field of expertise?

Quite a lot, but they started with evidence and went from there, rather than starting with a conclusion and finding whatever ad hoc nonsense they could cobble together, then pushing out to a wider audience. Equally, for every one of these cases where trail blazing research has actually lead to a change in direction for the consensus within the community, orders of magnitude more went absolutely nowhere. 

These kinds of discussions happen all the time in the scientific community, but that's the point, they happen within the community. People put their work up for peer review, it's considered, and the body of evidence for that position grows with further publications and review. 

[Archied]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

Because a lot of people don't do that fact checking, and spreading disinformation can be dangerous. 

Well, that video was removed from youtube for disinformation. That seems a fair way of dealing with the concern. 

I'm not the one who decided. But yes, if information fails basic fact checking requirements, particularly about such a sensitive topic, then people should avoid publishing it. In the case of media giants, this would mean removing it from their platforms. Those people can go posting elsewhere of course, but it makes sense for those large platforms to not give them a stage. 

I don't know the facts of the case, so I don't feel it's my place to comment. 

I don't think you understand the difference between private media platforms and government. Media platforms are private entities, and have the right of choice as to what is hosted, much like here. It is very different for a media platform to not give someone a platform to share their views, and a government to forcibly stop someone. I don't know the facts of the case you're noting above, so again, I won't comment on that, but it's a very different story. 

To put it another way, a newspaper declining to publish your rant about how the country is run by lizard people is not censorship, the government locking you up indefinitely for having said it is. 

Quite a lot, but they started with evidence and went from there, rather than starting with a conclusion and finding whatever ad hoc nonsense they could cobble together, then pushing out to a wider audience. Equally, for every one of these cases where trail blazing research has actually lead to a change in direction for the consensus within the community, orders of magnitude more went absolutely nowhere. 

These kinds of discussions happen all the time in the scientific community, but that's the point, they happen within the community. People put their work up for peer review, it's considered, and the body of evidence for that position grows with further publications and review. 

????? yep I noticed the part where mike yeadon , professor gubta (spelling?) and plenty of other highly qualified and respected people claimed the royal family are lizard people , yet again the tactic of throwing out the extreme and tarnishing all dissenting voices with it so we can ban them , gov put pressure on these platforms to ban what they consider misinformation so no it’s not just up to those platforms 

[Archied]

14 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Plenty for sure - but of course the point at which the advances were accepted was when they were peer reviewed and shown to be true

I think you'll be waiting a long time for the grifters to get their YouTube misinformation peer-reviewed - not least because they have zero interest in that process. That ain't where the money is.

Be careful down the rabit hole mate

Might be worth looking where the money is if you intend to accuse others, careful you don’t fall off that high moral intellectual tower

[GboroRam]

6 minutes ago, Archied said:

????? yep I noticed the part where mike yeadon , professor gubta (spelling?) and plenty of other highly qualified and respected people claimed the royal family are lizard people , yet again the tactic of throwing out the extreme and tarnishing all dissenting voices with it so we can ban them , gov put pressure on these platforms to ban what they consider misinformation so no it’s not just up to those platforms 

But where do we draw the line? Effectively you're against publishing one line of disinformation but in favour of publishing the other. Basically you are drawing the line in the place you want it, but ignoring the evidence.

34 minutes ago, Archied said:

Just as a matter of interest how much scientific and medical advance do think has been made by people who flew in the face of they’re peers and other favoured experts of they’re time even in fields that may not have been considered they’re field of expertise?

I don't know - but I know plenty of damage has been done by people who "flew in the face of they're (sic) peers", ignoring the science in favour of personal gain. I'm looking in your direction, Andrew Wakefield.

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

????? yep I noticed the part where mike yeadon , professor gubta (spelling?) and plenty of other highly qualified and respected people claimed the royal family are lizard people , yet again the tactic of throwing out the extreme and tarnishing all dissenting voices with it so we can ban them , gov put pressure on these platforms to ban what they consider misinformation so no it’s not just up to those platforms 

You entire argument is going back to a fairly weak attempt at an appeal to authority. 

What Yeadon was claiming was outright false for the most part. 

In terms of Prof. Gupta, here work is very much fringe science, and while you say 'well respected', her predictions based on her work at the start of the pandemic have since been shown to be incorrect, and her attempted movement with the great Barrington declaration was a laughing stock. As noted, fringe science can be the start of the new mainstream, but her work has not taken off, and has done little to suggest it will given... well, it failed to predict any of what came later. I don't think she was ever trying to mislead people of course, and that prediction came on the back of limited data to assess the fraction of the population that already had it. 

Also, I find it odd that you feel that governments have some vested interest in the current means of controlling the virus, given how differently each country has handled it. However you want to slice it, however, the countries that have successfully controlled the virus are the ones that listened to the mainstream idea of controlling the disease, followed by test and tracing, rather than going for late reactionary interventions like long rolling lockdowns. 

The funny part in all of this is that in some sense, we both completely agree. The idea of controlling a pandemic with lockdowns is ridiculous and cruel, and causes a whole host of other issues that it can take years to decades to sort out. The difference in our positions is that mine comes from a position that a proper response shouldn't require lockdowns longer than a few weeks, except in the worst case scenario. Yours is that they shouldn't be used at all. Where we end up clashing is in the case where a country's response has failed miserable, like in the UK, where the reality of stopping cascading collapse of medical services starts to become part of the conversation.