Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

FallingAwake

Members
  • Posts

    1,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FallingAwake

  1. Politicians, the media and the public. Politicians don't do things completely in a vacuum.
  2. Well, maybe you're right. Maybe they're safe. In which case, one of the best things the government could do to boost my confidence in it is, remove indemnification from the drug companies. You've made the case that they're almost certainly safe. If what you're saying is true, the drug companies should be willing to put their money where their mouth is, instead of making the taxpayer take the risk. If so, I'd be far more willing to consider it. As it is, they're off the hook at the moment. Now that the vaccine has been made and, according to your belief, is safe... would you be willing to sign your name to a campaign removing any further indemnification? You'd definitely be helping a lot of vaccine hesitant people. Fair enough.
  3. "A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated.2 “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement.3 Except, it hadn’t..." See, this is the kind of thing that happens in emergencies and crises, and when institutions (including medical ones) follow along blindly.
  4. I thought I did explain it, in the whole "this is based on a new technology" thing? Incidentally, here's a question for you. If every other vaccine has such a good track record, why not use the same technology as the other vaccines for covid? At least then your argument would be more watertight. As it is, they decided to try out a new technology on hundreds of millions of people.
  5. I'm guessing the answer you're looking for is... "very quickly"? Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true... and that for other vaccines, side effects emerge very quickly, i.e. in a matter of months. My point is, this is a NEW TYPE of vaccine, using mRNA technology (at least for the two big ones). Should we really be treating the safety of new technology through the lens of the older tech?
  6. Because we don't know what the long-term effects are? For example, after 3 years is there no alteration to your body apart from immunity to covid? You can't answer that because nobody knows for sure. At best, the answer is theoretical. Well, side effects can emerge very quickly, or much later. The FDA approve products, only to withdraw them from the market YEARS later, after long-term negative effects are discovered and the damage has already been done. Why is there a delay in withdrawing them? The damaging effects aren't discovered, in some cases, until YEARS later. Anyway, I'm not saying anything controversial. This is in the medical disclaimers put out by the vaccine companies. As long as you understand there are known and unknown risks with any new medical product, that's fine. I'm just saying what these companies are saying.
  7. Vaccine hesitancy is a symptom of people’s broken relationship with the state https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/15/vaccine-hesitancy-broken-relationship-state-conspiracy-theorists Not a great article, but it's at least a half-decent attempt to identity WHY people may be so-called "vaccine hesitant". I think she boils it down to TRUST... or lack of, which I tend to agree with. Government and the media spend much of their time slandering, blaming others and occasionally perhaps lying... and then suddenly expect blind trust. Hmm. Some of the commentators on the article make a distinction between "government" and "science", i.e you may not be able to trust government but you can trust science. Well, both "government" and "science" are words embracing concepts. "Government" embraces the DVLA, the agency trying to get more money for the arts, and the Foreign Office. It is led by differing individuals and groups, from Tony Blair to David Cameron and Boris Johnson. It is not one big BLOB. (I'm talking about "government" here ) Similarly with "science". It includes the people in lab coats sticking things over Bunsen burners, but it also includes methods of funding, including government grants, drug companies with profit motives, etc. Most important of all, it includes humans who are subject to the same fallacies as all of us - including our own biases, assumptions, beliefs, vested interests, group-think etc. Of course, science is supposed to be more objective, but it also has its flaws. Anyway, the more interesting aspect is when these two combine. A comparison would be Government and Big Finance. A lot of people have noticed how there seems to be a revolving door between financial institutions, and the government agencies meant to regulate those institutions. If this were true, I don't think many on this forum would be all that surprised. But for some reason, I suspect many don't think of "science" the same way, even though many of the drug companies rely (at least in part) on government for funding and/or approval of their products. This is especially true of Moderna.. where government grants were a major source of their funding. For some reason, people can be sceptical of connections when it comes to Government and Finance, but completely trusting when it comes to Government and Pharma, because "science" is involved. What am I trying to say in this long-winded post? I'm not sure. I guess I'm trying to explain why people might distrust "science." In some cases, it's more that they don't trust the science, money, etc behind it. Plus, for me, I don't trust the science behind mRNA vaccines yet. These mRNA vaccines are completely safe, we're told... in the first EIGHT MONTHS after we decided to inject the whole world with them. I think it's fair to say, governments and regulatory agencies took a gamble. They vastly reduced the amount time testing this (compared with most other medical interventions), because in the middle of a pandemic you don't have the luxury of time. I get that. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "OK... I get why you want to encourage people to get this vaccine, but I think I'll wait for now." For some reason, people who write these kinds of articles usually can't conceive of this.
  8. Probably worth capturing for posterity. (The headline I mean!) Also in case the two on the right decide to form a 1970's prog rock band.
  9. But apparently all the sane people are those who believe it was orchestrated by 19 men run by a man in a cave.
  10. Thank you for making an effort to "fact check the fact checkers". They still need watching, as in the case of Snopes, whose co-founder and 50% shareholder was plagiarizing other people's material. https://time.com/6090471/plagiarism-snopes/ Of course, that doesn't mean fact checking isn't useful. I'd say it's critical. It's just, we live in a world where people have vested interests, biases, beliefs, etc etc. It's very hard to be completely unbiased and objective... and fact checkers aren't immune from these laws of human nature.
  11. The same as the goals of divorce or independence. The goal is separation. For some reason, ex-Remainers can't conceive that independence IS a goal, IS the outcome, i.e. the American Revolution example I gave earlier. It's not a difficult concept. I'm not sure why so many ex-Remainers are struggling with it. When you divorce, your goal is to... separate. That's what Brexit was. The goal was achieved.
  12. Imagine the screaming if / when interest rates ever return to "normal". Then again, I'm not sure they ever will, unless inflation gets really out of hand.
  13. I appreciate this thread is mostly an anti-Brexit echo chamber, so I'll keep my comments brief. I'm going to judge Brexit based on the long term, not on an "8 months in plus a worldwide pandemic" timeline. I'm also going to judge it based on what we choose to do with it, and also what the EU looks like 10-20 years from now. We already know the EU's plan. Ever closer union. I voted "Nah" to that, but I wish them well in their endeavor.
  14. Then again, 20% of people use a product with the label "SMOKING KILLS" taking up half the packet.
  15. [insert "not sure if serious" gif here ] It's not that different here in the UK. If you only watch the mainstream media for your news (i.e. BBC, ITV, Sky News) then I don't see why you'd need to question the Glorious Jab at all. It's safe, effective, and safe. Also effective.
  16. 20 Years Of War In Afghanistan Has Cost US Taxpayers Over $2.2 Trillion https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/20-years-war-afghanistan-has-cost-us-taxpayers-over-22-trillion "From its start in 2001 through April 2021, the war in Afghanistan has cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $2.261 trillion, according to estimates earlier this year from the Costs of War Project at Brown University," Fox News reviews of the disturbingly high figures. All that as the US public now sits back and witnesses US-trained Afghan forces retreat "without a bullet being fired". All courtesy of the sense of emergency stoked by the 9/11 crisis. The US were in Afghanistan basically within the month.
  17. Here's the story on which the article is based... https://www.timesofisrael.com/health-officials-predict-thousands-of-seriously-ill-covid-patients-within-month/ Yes, it's interesting that they don't mention how many were vaccinated vs how many were not. Politicians have pushed vaccines hard. I guess it would be kind of embarrassing to them if the majority or even most of these patients were vaccinated. Edit: I just noticed, it's a prediction So that would at least explain why they don't have the vaxx / unvaxxed figures.
  18. I do. In the end, I guess we'll see. While we continue to vaccinate our entire population using a brand new technology never used on this scale before, we'll see how India fares in comparison to us. It's also useful to know that Ivermectin is part of their plan. That is all, really. Let different countries try different approaches. That's a healthy thing, in my opinion.
  19. I got it. I am not to believe anything that goes against the "only the vaccines work" message. So I think I did understand it.
  20. Really? OK... (1) It was an analogy for IMHAL's "what's the plan?" statement. A divorce is about splitting. What each partner chooses to do after that is up to them. (2) The USA did reasonably well after splitting from the British Empire. Not sure they had a "plan" either apart from "being independent."
  21. Great, so at least you got my analogy. Even in that situation, both parties would hopefully move on with their lives... instead of continually bitching and moaning about their past relationship. It's time to get over it.
  22. India's Ivermectin Blackout https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html So it seems India went and ignored the "wisdom" telling them that Ivermectin wasn't effective, and included it in their plans anyway. Looks like it's working well for them, i.e. Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin: Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 26 COVID Daily Deaths: 3 Incidentally, the state that rejected Ivermectin and went with the USA guidance of using Remdesivir (which is approved by the FDA for the treatment of cov-19), saw a much higher incidence of cases. Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated] COVID Daily Cases: 1,997 COVID Daily Deaths: 33 Anyway, congratulations to India for trying something different and not blindly following the "vaccine or nothing" approach.
  23. A woman decides she wants to divorce her husband. The husband then rants at her for years, including months after the divorce, in late night phone calls such as this: "What's your PLAN? You don't have a PLAN YET? Your divorce is already an unmitigated disaster..." I think we'd agree that would be considered abuse. We were asked whether we wanted to leave or remain in the EU. We voted to leave. Get over it. The wife has divorced, and now she wants to decide what she does with her life, without her ex phoning her up all the time. I mean, we could have done with you in 1776. You'd have been great against the Americans. "Independence? INDEPENDENCE? Pah. What could you possibly DO with independence, Americans? Pah. Who's gonna trade with you after you leave the British Empire, huh? Answer me THAT." They'd have surrendered immediately.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.