+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Here we are trying to discuss the importance of whether lockdowns did more harm than good and you’re more concerned about potential multiple accounts. Weird
Why don’t you organise a separate thread on multiple accounts and we can discuss a best way forward in respect your obsession.
Fair play, 5 pages for a fishing expedition![]()
Just for the record, we were not discussing 'Nichola's saintly qualities'. You were coming back on my response to Life On Mars' incontinence at the news that Police Scotland were on a fraud enquiry into the SNP use of donations which said:
'Sturgeon and Drakeford have their weaknesses and failures, but they are head and shoulders above the shower of corrupt incompetents you usually drool over.'
I assured you that I stood by that comment. In fact if the polis decided to arrest the entire leaderships of the SNP and Plaid I would still hold the view that their leaders are more articulate, more astute, more empathetic, more grounded in normal peoples' experience and more likeable than the shower of corrupt charlatans usually promoted by LOM, whether or not they have their collar felt.
It is a comparative judgement of course. Many faults with Sturgeon (and Drakeford) and maybe more to be revealled. But next to Hodge, Rees-Mogg and the other LOM pin-ups..... no contest.
Happy to clear that up.
I pretty much agree with this.
I think we all agree that the first lockdown was necessary. We didn't know what we were dealing with, it clearly helped to slow the spread and in all honesty I think for that initial period it even did us all some good.
The problem is that as it dragged on it became obvious to so many that enormous and prolonged damage was going to be caused, primarily to the vulnerable but also to society more widely. These opinions were too often dismissed as being anto-science etc, when in most cases they absolutely were not. They were either rooted in concerns based on the social sciences, they were often correct and there is also nothing remotely anti-science about questioning science. In fact, a trait of scientific advancements is that it always questioned the science that preceded it.
So first lockdown, fine, in fact if anything it was enacted a bit late But by the second or third I think we knew we were causing damage and those voices should have been heard more.
Personally I cannot think of a single positive change since Covid. Nearly everything is strained, weakened, damaged, hitting the vulnerable more, made more expensive etc etc etc.
Put bluntly, 'the science' has to include social sciences too..issues about society. It was too focused on medical science and needed to achieve more balance
Ferguson ('Professor Lockdown') convinced Boris to order millions to stay at home.
Ferguson *PUBLICLY* warned that lifting lockdown prematurely could cost 100,000 lives.
But *PRIVATELY* he broke Lockdown to visit his lover. He knew Lockdown was pointless
Imperial college of London received money from both Wellcome trust and Gates foundation. Wellcome trust received funds from all big pharma
It is a relief to now know that all the avoidable mistakes and damage of the Covid response in the UK (including I assume all the fraud, corruption, hypocrisy, mixed messages, and sanctimonious exceptionalism of those at the top) were the fault of opposition politicians and scientists. For a while I thought it might be the government, but glad to be put right!
A =/= B
You can believe that 1000’s of peoples standing shoulder to shoulder in stadiums, nightclubs, arenas, trains, busses and mingling in pubs, offices, schools, etc poses a risk of spreading Covid whilst also believing that stepping out of your front door, into your car, then into your lover’s house doesn’t pose a risk to yourself personally.