What a load of utter tinfoil nonsense. New world order can be used to refer to the new order of the world (i.e. changed circumstances) rather than reptilian paedos. As for Bill Gates, he has said that effective vaccination programs are a way to combat overpopulation. However what the conspiracy idiots fail to appreciate is that he's not talking about sterilising people via vaccinations - it will reduce overpopulation because if parents in third world countries can be relatively sure their children will survive they won't have so many in a short space of time just in case some die of disease. You should watch Utopia (the old c4 drama not the new amazon one). You'd go into conspiracy meltdown if you saw it.
That's not New Zealand, nor is it Australia, the two countries I mentioned, which have, as I said, isolated themselves from the rest of the world, and are in the process of running their economies into the ground. Whether that's an accurate definition of bankrupt doesn't concern me, the sentiment remains, they're financially screwed, and that's no kind of success that it's reported to be. If they wish to get out of that predicament they will need to open back up at which point covid will be exactly the same problem as elsewhere, but the misery they will have inflicted on their population prior to the misery of the virus will make it feel much worse.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to defeating this virus is self interest. Everyone must know that the best way to reduce transmission is to keep contact with other people to the bare minimum. There surely can't be anyone who is so incredibly stupid, that they don't comprehend that. Some people are letting their judgement become clouded by a desire to continue doing their usual thing. My income is down 50% because of the pandemic, but it hasn't stopped me respecting the virus and doing the right thing. So when you are shown the evidence, you still refuse to believe it. Do your credibility a favour and stop trying to deny the undeniable. It may be hard to swallow for you, but there simply can't be so much non-essential mixing allowed to happen at this moment in time.
Mate we've got to stop turning on each other, it's no one's fault and most good businesses have put measures in place. The track and trace system is the core issue, data from that is a mess. Government policy is all over the shop, they've helped non of us long term. We all want to be safe and financially secure and track and trace though not a silver bullet would have helped us all.
So this is one of those science led policies where you think of a policy and then selectively massage the data to justify it - from Boris's Government Im shocked shocked I tell you
How is worrying about livelihoods, businesses, families and industries about self interest? I’m not doing my usual thing right now, which I’ve said in many a message on here, and I doubt that would change just because of a 10pm curfew. I’m thinking of others. You class it as non-essential mixing but for a huge amount of people it’s essential to mental health - and the experts are supporting that. The mental health of the people mixing, or not mixing but leaving the house with their household, and those running the businesses that serve them. My credibility is well in tact and there’s nothing ‘incredibly stupid’ about my viewpoint or others who share the same concerns. You’ve not shown any valid evidence to back up what you’re saying. You’ve argued against Public Health England data with a different set of data that’s based on assumptions and doesn’t even support the point you’re trying to make.
What evidence though there is no context on those figures that allegedy show something that contradicts all other available evidence. How long do we stop all non essential mixing - this virus isnt going away anytime soon - do you want to live in a country with no pubs restaurants theatre cinema sports where everything is fed to you on your TV and you never go out and meet people. I was OK doing it for a few weeks but the damage long term is one of those cure far worse than disease scenarios
Read the bit at the top - The government has prioritised education and work this leaves only a small number of settings that can be acted upon Its not that 30% of infections can be traced to pubs - it seems to me that its 30% of infections the goverment thinks it can tackle can be traced to pubs - fine if its a major contributer but stupid if it isnt I am confused as to exactly what is in that data but the percentages add up to 67% ie 2/3rds of all infections and that is demonstrably false - we know that care homes education and work public transport travel etc amount for more than 1/3 of total infections. so I really dont know what this data is based on. I think - but its a best guess that its a breakdown of transmission cases once the goverment has taken out the ones it doesnt want to touch - ie the big ones so 30% of 10% for example isnt a very big number. but I really dont know - without knowing what those figuers are really telling us its hard to form any view of their relevance. It could also be that its a breakdown of infections by places people visited, ie 30% of those with covid had visited a pub in the 14 days before they were diagnosed - the fact they also went to work , uni etc where they possibly caught it isnt taken into account. Thats the problem I have with this data
That's not the way I read it. It's only showing the settings that can be acted on, but the percentages relate to all settings i.e. things like schools and workplaces are part of the overall equation but have been filtered out.
Agreed. I think I can't make my mind up whether Pontyender's post was sanctimonious or patronising or both. Sorry PE nothing personal but in my opinion that's not the way to engage someone who has a reasonable argument and has a different view on the data presented.
The 'Infection Events' that result in the most Covid-19 cases, by far? Watching TV or eating dinner with your family or maybe sleeping with your partner. If you really want to protect yourself, don't go home or don't ever go out, nor can the people you live with. And if you choose the don't go out option, don't take deliveries of any kind. It's ludicrous, of course it is, but it's also true. Other than complete isolation, as an individual, a family, or even a nation, which leads to abject misery, we don't control the spread of viruses with our current technology. We've had some success with certain types of virus via vaccination, but not with respiratory infections. We may develop a vaccine, but there is a huge misunderstanding of what a vaccine actually does. That is not the fault of the populace, it's huge deficiencies in those that are supposed to disseminate relevant information. A vaccine does not fight a virus. It stimulates your immune response to fight that virus. If your immune response is already weak, it will not help. There is nothing there to stimulate. There has never before been a virus we have encountered where the correlation between weakened immune systems (through age or disease) and susceptibility to the effects of the virus is so stark. It's a straight line at 45 degrees. A vaccine will not help the people vulnerable to the virus. It just won't. A vaccine will mean that a vulnerable person is less likely to encounter a less vulnerable person with the virus and is therefore less likely to contract the infection. But the efficacy of the best vaccines for respiratory diseases isn't all that hot. The very best immunity to a respiratory virus for a healthy human is to have already had it. That's not 100% either, but it's streets ahead of a vaccine.
But that cant be true - if you add up the percentages in that chart you get 67% so you are saying that schools workplace carehomes all together only contribute 30% - the same as pubs that so far contradicts every other study it cant be the case. Look at the pie chart in the OP Schools and Colleges 44% Workplace 16% care homes 25% - then add hospitals which is 5% and you have 90% Pubs are 3% or 30% of the remaining 10%. The government has eliminated the biggest contributers and says its not touching them and is focusing on the biggest of the remaining 10% of the causes - its madness
I said in an earlier reply it looked like a subset of the data and that they were ignoring 90% of the cases to focus on 10%. That was without doing the maths you’ve done to confirm it. Bunch of absolute charlatans running the country.
"Call it whatever you like, but I'm going to call it what the Facebook nutters do." I'll fetch my tin hat for when you bring up Agenda 21.
Most people who have been about on the Internet know that 'deep state' is code - nobody uses it just because it's easy shorthand.