Archied Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Albert said: 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. Wow , there’s bits in there I can agree with , though it’s based on the premise that Australia response would have worked worldwide and long term once a virus as contagious as this was out in the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 22 minutes ago, Archied said: Wow , there’s bits in there I can agree with , though it’s based on the premise that Australia response would have worked worldwide and long term once a virus as contagious as this was out in the world As has been discussed numerous times, it's not based on the premise that Australia's response would have worked Worldwide. I'm not even convinced Australia's response was that good. The point is that going for a target of effective elimination, regardless of means, was a better way of going about things. Going from low case loads to elimination isn't that challenging. Going from high case loads to manageable case loads takes long lockdowns, or at the very least fairly brutal restrictions. This has been seen in Europe, where waves have only been controlled by such measures, yet the measures definitely work, as seen by the fact the waves were brought to an end by them. This implies that the very methods that are required for elimination are indeed effective, hence elimination was indeed possible. The problem is, at this point, that European countries are in a position where it would take months of lockdowns to get to that point, which then opens up other questions. If a vaccine is around the corner, it could make sense to just hold course with these rolling lockdowns. This was, indeed, what the modelling out of Imperial College London suggested would happen with these strategies, and if the end point is near, then that is better than long lockdowns to go for elimination, particularly as that would require harsher restrictions on travel between regions. Of course, if the time to a vaccine is longer, then elimination becomes favourable. The question is then about how quickly various countries, with stronger border protections, could stamp the virus out, as compared to the expected number of months of lockdown under the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 26 minutes ago, Archied said: Wow , there’s bits in there I can agree with , though it’s based on the premise that Australia response would have worked worldwide and long term once a virus as contagious as this was out in the world The one thing we can probably all agree on is that we don't know whether or not Australia's response would have worked here, but Britain's response wouldn't have worked anywhere this side of the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 1 hour ago, GboroRam said: 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. 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. No I’m not drawing any line, I don’t care if icke posts about lizard people , does himself more harm than anybody else, yes to a point but I’m sure you would agree by the same token that plenty plenty harm has been done by accepted science and medical thinking of its time over the years? what we ( me) are talking about here is the principle of any one side deciding what is disinformation and banning it from being seen heard or written about ?♂️ Stuff from people like yeadon and other highly qualified and respected people is not misinformation to be banned it’s opinion and theory to be investigated, evaluated and proved or disproved in fullness, they may well be wrong in some parts and may well be right or have valid points to make in other parts, this ban all and slur people policy only serves to further mistrust in the powers that be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 21 minutes ago, Archied said: what we ( me) are talking about here is the principle of any one side deciding what is disinformation and banning it from being seen heard or written about And what is the workable alternative that you suggest? And the emphasis is very much on the word workable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: And what is the workable alternative that you suggest? And the emphasis is very much on the word workable Freedom of speech, in my view it outs loons and dangerous people rather than giving them a mysterious credence, isn’t peer review a kind putting stuff out there to be evaluated and accepted or not?♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, Archied said: Freedom of speech, in my view it outs loons and dangerous people rather than giving them a mysterious credence, isn’t peer review a kind putting stuff out there to be evaluated and accepted or not?♂️ That might have been true in the past. When loons have immediate access to the world via youtube/facebook etc, the damage will be done before someone like @Albert has time to point out all the errors/lies. When nearly 50% of the USA vote for someone who has deliberately and continually spread obvious lies and mis-information, there is little hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 2 hours 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. Was just having same conversation with my brother. Childcare bubbles don't count for Christmas bubbles unless it's properly for childcare... Between 23 and 27 December, you can continue to use a childcare bubble, but only if reasonably necessary for the purposes of childcare and where there are no reasonable alternatives. If you want to meet socially with the other household in your childcare bubble, you should include them in your Christmas bubble. You and the other household in your childcare bubble would count as two households towards the three household limit for Christmas bubbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: That might have been true in the past. When loons have immediate access to the world via youtube/facebook etc, the damage will be done before someone like @Albert has time to point out all the errors/lies. When nearly 50% of the USA vote for someone who has deliberately and continually spread obvious lies and mis-information, there is little hope. MMR vaccine falsehoods gained significant popularity with apparently damaging consequences. Freedom of speech is not risk free particularly if read by people suffering confirmation bias or not having the knowledge to doubt the info provided. Hilary Mantels books about Cromwell (which are excellent) attributed a quote along the line of 'don't give me all the facts just give me enough to support my opinion'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, Archied said: Freedom of speech, in my view it outs loons and dangerous people rather than giving them a mysterious credence, isn’t peer review a kind putting stuff out there to be evaluated and accepted or not?♂️ Peer review is a gate, a challenge to anyone publishing data. Does it make sense? Does the data show what you think it says? Did you fairly select the sample and treat the subjects correctly? Do the conclusions match what the actual results give? Are there other explanations for the results? There are problems with peer review - mainly the ease of getting it, rather than it being too draconian. Here's an article with a few good points: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 8 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said: Was just having same conversation with my brother. Childcare bubbles don't count for Christmas bubbles unless it's properly for childcare... Between 23 and 27 December, you can continue to use a childcare bubble, but only if reasonably necessary for the purposes of childcare and where there are no reasonable alternatives. If you want to meet socially with the other household in your childcare bubble, you should include them in your Christmas bubble. You and the other household in your childcare bubble would count as two households towards the three household limit for Christmas bubbles. Yep. My parents have to make the easy decision of choosing from me, my sister, and my brother (and associated partners and children). As my wife's family live in another country, we automatically make the cut ? As my sister has a child and my brother doesn't, my brother is the easy one to lock out. At least he can go round his partner's parents instead. I feel sorry for those with more complicated situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Our vaccine survey looks to have ended on these results 74% Would take the vaccine 9.5% Won't 16.5% May take the vaccine when they have more info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 51 minutes ago, sage said: Our vaccine survey looks to have ended on these results 74% Would take the vaccine 9.5% Won't 16.5% May take the vaccine when they have more info Think that’s probably a pretty decent figure judging only on personal conversations with friends and work mates , out of interest the amount of time I see talk radio panned on here as a totally negative misinformation platform, people may be interested to know that the bits I’ve heard they seem to be very positive towards the vaccine and encouraging people to have it , though not so keen on it being mandated, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 33 minutes ago, Archied said: Think that’s probably a pretty decent figure judging only on personal conversations with friends and work mates , out of interest the amount of time I see talk radio panned on here as a totally negative misinformation platform, people may be interested to know that the bits I’ve heard they seem to be very positive towards the vaccine and encouraging people to have it , though not so keen on it being mandated, They are a shock radio outlet. They will broadcast controversial pieces regardless of the validity of it. By all means listen to it, but look elsewhere for critical opinion pieces that are thought out and grounded in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Contain Nuts Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 I tried to answer people about my long post the other day, but the editor seems to have decided that it won't store my temporary posts properly... and i accidentally deleted 2 separate posts and about an hour's typing and gave up. Apologies if anyone was expecting a response, but I can't be bothered to spend 40 minutes typing one out again! Gist of it was something about broadly agreeing with Albert, just not the posting style, and it not really being meant as an attack, that I don't back unsubstantiated links and agree they should be challenged, but not in a manner whereby you seemingly have to have a masters degree in arguing on the internet to take part. Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archied Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, GboroRam said: They are a shock radio outlet. They will broadcast controversial pieces regardless of the validity of it. By all means listen to it, but look elsewhere for critical opinion pieces that are thought out and grounded in science. So should I ignore them on taking the vaccine? I already use a wide range of media , learnt that many years ago, I’m well aware of tactics of click bait and controversial shows to generate phone in traffic, this is where I get a bit irked when people insinuate that the vast majority of people are not able to evaluate information and sources for themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Coconut said: but the editor seems to have decided that it won't store my temporary posts properly.. Only a couple of jumps from here to a conspiracy theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Archied said: So should I ignore them on taking the vaccine? I already use a wide range of media , learnt that many years ago, I’m well aware of tactics of click bait and controversial shows to generate phone in traffic, this is where I get a bit irked when people insinuate that the vast majority of people are not able to evaluate information and sources for themselves No...you should listen to them when they say things which agree with the official narrative but rubbish everything else they say! Its amazing how some of the posters on here attack things like Talk Radio, The Sun etc when they have probably never listened to/read them in their lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 2 hours ago, GboroRam said: They are a shock radio outlet. They will broadcast controversial pieces regardless of the validity of it. By all means listen to it, but look elsewhere for critical opinion pieces that are thought out and grounded in science. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 5 hours ago, ariotofmyown said: Was just having same conversation with my brother. Childcare bubbles don't count for Christmas bubbles unless it's properly for childcare... Between 23 and 27 December, you can continue to use a childcare bubble, but only if reasonably necessary for the purposes of childcare and where there are no reasonable alternatives. If you want to meet socially with the other household in your childcare bubble, you should include them in your Christmas bubble. You and the other household in your childcare bubble would count as two households towards the three household limit for Christmas bubbles. People wont listen to word of and proportions will go out and enjoying them selfs going places should not be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.