Speed1987 Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) Beta variant is here now lads, its in France if it gets here we are ******ed. It can evade the vaccine.... That means the last year and a half was for ****** all. When the cases numbers increase and hospitals get full, cue Boris to come on TV and lock us down, excuse new beta variant. 🤣🤣🤣 It's getting comical now. Then negative interest rates, loads of more free money and HPI to the moon. Edited July 17, 2021 by Speed1987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) Israel. Age Group 20-29 unvaccinated cases are 23% of all 287 cases in that age group, while 23% of that age group are unvaccinated. Age Group 50-59 unvaccinated cases are 9.8% of all 263 cases in that age group, while 9% of that age group are unvaccinated. Age Group 60-69 unvaccinated cases are 5.8% of all 241 cases in that age group, while 9% of that age group are unvaccinated. Generally negligible to no difference between the two. The Seychelles has vaccinated practically their entire adult population. Here's a comparison on how they are doing versus some other African nations who have less than 1% vaccine coverage. Vaccine Covid - Adverse reaction 1 hour ago, Sour Mash said: The doctor who produced the Ivermectin meta-study seems to be pretty convienced of its efficacy but then what does she know, compared to you? Personally, I find her approach of methodically explaining the study to be more convincing than your approach of slagging off anyone who advocates Ivermectin, but hey. Here's another view on the Israeli statistics : https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762: "Ivermectin, a drug used to treat parasitic infections in humans that are more commonly used on animals, is now trending and exploding in Asia." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/vaccine/asia-departs-from-the-gates-schwab-agenda-of-vaccinating-the-world/ Edited July 17, 2021 by Arpeggio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Sour Mash said: Personally, I find her approach of methodically explaining the study to be more convincing than your approach of slagging off anyone who advocates Ivermectin, but hey. Tess Lawrie is a denialist crank and bad faith actor pretending to be a scientist. Her methodical 'explanations' are unevidenced, non-peer reviewed hokum. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-isnt-a-highly-effective-drug-for-treating-covid-19-tess-lawrie/ Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for treating parasitic infections, however many have called for its use to treat COVID-19, which is caused by a virus. Its antiviral efficacy hasn’t been demonstrated in people, but in vitro studies, which are performed outside of living organisms, have shown that ivermectin has antiviral activity against some viruses, such as dengue[1] and Zika virus[2]. In vitro studies typically involve artificial conditions that don’t represent conditions in the human body. Clinical trials on the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19 have also been done, some of which were indeed published and included in Lawrie’s meta-analysis. However, there are several issues with Lawrie’s meta-analysis. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, unlike published studies in scientific journals, and several of the studies used by the FLCCC and included in Lawrie’s review have also not been peer-reviewed[3-5]. The lack of peer review means that scientists with relevant expertise, such as epidemiologists and biostatisticians, haven’t independently reviewed the research. Peer review is an important step in the scientific publishing process, as it helps authors identify and correct substantial errors or shortcomings in their studies. It can also help to determine the quality of a given study. For example, some publications may contain very strong scientific evidence and novel discoveries, while others may have only weak research to back up their hypotheses. Overall, peer review can help prevent the spread of exaggerated or unsupported scientific claims. Both Lawrie and the FLCCC cited three ongoing clinical trials testing the effects of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that produced inconclusive results, as well as a report by Juan Chamie, a data analyst with no training in biology or medicine. Overall, presenting these studies and clinical trials as evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 without acknowledging their limitations is inaccurate and misleading. Notably, a preprint study by Elgazzar et al., used in Lawrie’s meta-analysis, was withdrawn in July 2021 after numerous issues with the study were detected. Among these issues were plagiarism, potential data fabrication, and data that was inconsistent with the study’s protocol. These issues were uncovered by student Jack Lawrence, who analyzed the preprint for a class assignment. A summary of the results and limitations of some clinical studies on the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 is available on the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines website. For example, some limitations of these clinical studies included small sample size and vague definitions of disease severity. For instance, if the severity of symptoms is poorly defined, it becomes difficult to objectively assess the level of improvement provided by a drug treatment, if any. Furthermore, some studies did not have a placebo control at all. Without a placebo control, we cannot exclude the bias created by the placebo effect. The placebo effect occurs when a participant’s belief that she or he is receiving an effective treatment produces a positive effect on their symptoms, even though they have actually been given a placebo with no active effect on their illness. Furthermore, some of the studies would draw claims upon observations, which were not statistically significant, i.e. it could not be ruled out that all the results occurred only by chance. The focus on ivermectin as a potential drug against COVID-19 started with an in vitro study published by Caly et al. in 2020 showed that ivermectin had antiviral effects against the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, in cell cultures[6]. Although this result provided researchers with a justification for continuing studies of the drug, this study in itself didn’t provide evidence of ivermectin’s clinical efficacy against COVID-19. Furthermore, the study used very high concentrations of ivermectin that were many times higher than the doses approved for use in people[6]. Contrary to the video’s claim, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study by López-Medina et al. showed that ivermectin is unlikely to be effective in patients with mild COVID-19[7]. This study was well-designed and doesn’t possess many of the limitations present in the clinical trials cited in Lawrie’s meta-analysis. Since this study was double-blinded, neither the trial participants nor the researchers knew if they had received or administered the placebo or the drug being tested. This design helps to eliminate bias. That being said, the authors concluded that larger trials need to be conducted to better understand the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. The video also misleads viewers by suggesting that safety data regarding a drug’s use for one purpose applies to different uses. Although scientists have known about ivermectin for more than forty years and it has been used to treat parasitic infections, this isn’t relevant to the safety of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. Simply because a drug is safe to use for one disease doesn’t mean that it’s safe to use for another disease. Physiological changes produced by one disease doesn’t translate to the same changes in the case of another disease. The differences in physiological states can mean that the drug is safe to use for certain diseases, but not others. Indeed, many drugs have contraindications, or conditions in which the drug shouldn’t be used because it can harm the patient. In short, while ivermectin is safe to use for treating parasitic infections, this doesn’t automatically mean it will be safe for COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we also don’t know how ivermectin may interact with other drugs given as standard treatment against COVID-19 and the risks associated with these potential interactions. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that ivermectin is safe for COVID-19 patients on the basis of its safety for treating parasitic infections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 14 minutes ago, Arpeggio said: Ivermectin, a drug used to treat parasitic infections in humans that are more commonly used on animals, is now trending and exploding in Asia." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/vaccine/asia-departs-from-the-gates-schwab-agenda-of-vaccinating-the-world/ Martin Armstrong is a convicted fraudster who spent 11 years in jail for cheating investors out of $700m and hiding $15m in assets from investigators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_A._Armstrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sour Mash said: Personally, I find her approach of methodically explaining the study to be more convincing than your approach of slagging off anyone who advocates Ivermectin, but hey. Here's another view on the Israeli statistics : https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762: Vaccinated 6.72 times more likely to get re-infected than people who had been through the disease .... even accounting for uncontrolled factors it sure seems to me that natural immunity looks to be somewhat more 'robust' than vaccine induced immunity. But I'm sure you'll question the results and insist it's not true because of your incredible super-smarts meaning that anyone who disagrees is dumb. 45 minutes ago, zugzwang said: Tess Lawrie is a denialist crank and bad faith actor pretending to be a scientist. Her methodical 'explanations' are unevidenced, non-peer reviewed hokum. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-isnt-a-highly-effective-drug-for-treating-covid-19-tess-lawrie/ Oh dear @Sour Mash, it looks like your critical thinking skills have let you down again. Do have a read of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews protocol for reviewing Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 though. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017/full If you can understand it, you can learn a lot about how a meta-analysis should be done. The data the Israelis are producing look very interesting. Do you have a link for a scientific publication rather than a tabloid though? One of the issues with cohort studies is making sure that the cohorts (in this case the previously infected and the vaccinated) are comparable (in terms of things like their risk of Covid exposure). Edited July 17, 2021 by Will! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 23 minutes ago, zugzwang said: Martin Armstrong is a convicted fraudster who spent 11 years in jail for cheating investors out of $700m and hiding $15m in assets from investigators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_A._Armstrong 🤣 Oh my....it's Wikipedia! More one-sided than ever according to its own co-founder You mean this Martin Armstrong? https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Martin_Armstrong Do you actually have anything to say about the actual content of the article? in which Dr. David Nabarro stands up to Tedros as he shares his time between these issues in question and being a fraudulent, harassing sex pest? June 29, 2021 WHO Chief Must Leave After Scathing Audit, Says AHF "A recent independent financial audit of the World Health Organization (WHO) has revealed “an increasing trend of cases of misconduct, especially relating to fraud, harassment, non-compliance to professional standards and sexual misconduct.” In light of the audit, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the world’s largest provider of HIV/AIDS care globally, reiterates its earlier call for United Nations (UN) Member States not to re-appoint WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to a second term once his appointment concludes at the end of 2021." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, Will! said: Oh dear @Sour Mash, it looks like your critical thinking skills have let you down again. Do have a read of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews protocol for reviewing Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 though. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017/full If you can understand it, you can learn a lot about how a meta-analysis should be done. The Israeli data look very interesting. Do you have a link for a scientific publication rather than a tabloid though? One of the issues with cohort studies is making sure that the cohorts (in this case the previously infected and the vaccinated) are comparable (in terms of things like their risk of Covid exposure). The Cochrane Collaboration is another organization that has been corrupted according to its own co-founder, Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD. https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/02/institutional-corruption-cochrane-collaboration/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2018/09/16/cochrane-a-sinking-ship/ To be fair used to rely on them, but not since at least 2017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 1 hour ago, zugzwang said: Tess Lawrie is a denialist crank and bad faith actor pretending to be a scientist. Her methodical 'explanations' are unevidenced, non-peer reviewed hokum. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-isnt-a-highly-effective-drug-for-treating-covid-19-tess-lawrie/ Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for treating parasitic infections, however many have called for its use to treat COVID-19, which is caused by a virus. Its antiviral efficacy hasn’t been demonstrated in people, but in vitro studies, which are performed outside of living organisms, have shown that ivermectin has antiviral activity against some viruses, such as dengue[1] and Zika virus[2]. In vitro studies typically involve artificial conditions that don’t represent conditions in the human body. Clinical trials on the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19 have also been done, some of which were indeed published and included in Lawrie’s meta-analysis. However, there are several issues with Lawrie’s meta-analysis. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, unlike published studies in scientific journals, and several of the studies used by the FLCCC and included in Lawrie’s review have also not been peer-reviewed[3-5]. The lack of peer review means that scientists with relevant expertise, such as epidemiologists and biostatisticians, haven’t independently reviewed the research. Peer review is an important step in the scientific publishing process, as it helps authors identify and correct substantial errors or shortcomings in their studies. It can also help to determine the quality of a given study. For example, some publications may contain very strong scientific evidence and novel discoveries, while others may have only weak research to back up their hypotheses. Overall, peer review can help prevent the spread of exaggerated or unsupported scientific claims. Both Lawrie and the FLCCC cited three ongoing clinical trials testing the effects of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that produced inconclusive results, as well as a report by Juan Chamie, a data analyst with no training in biology or medicine. Overall, presenting these studies and clinical trials as evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 without acknowledging their limitations is inaccurate and misleading. Notably, a preprint study by Elgazzar et al., used in Lawrie’s meta-analysis, was withdrawn in July 2021 after numerous issues with the study were detected. Among these issues were plagiarism, potential data fabrication, and data that was inconsistent with the study’s protocol. These issues were uncovered by student Jack Lawrence, who analyzed the preprint for a class assignment. A summary of the results and limitations of some clinical studies on the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 is available on the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines website. For example, some limitations of these clinical studies included small sample size and vague definitions of disease severity. For instance, if the severity of symptoms is poorly defined, it becomes difficult to objectively assess the level of improvement provided by a drug treatment, if any. Furthermore, some studies did not have a placebo control at all. Without a placebo control, we cannot exclude the bias created by the placebo effect. The placebo effect occurs when a participant’s belief that she or he is receiving an effective treatment produces a positive effect on their symptoms, even though they have actually been given a placebo with no active effect on their illness. Furthermore, some of the studies would draw claims upon observations, which were not statistically significant, i.e. it could not be ruled out that all the results occurred only by chance. The focus on ivermectin as a potential drug against COVID-19 started with an in vitro study published by Caly et al. in 2020 showed that ivermectin had antiviral effects against the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, in cell cultures[6]. Although this result provided researchers with a justification for continuing studies of the drug, this study in itself didn’t provide evidence of ivermectin’s clinical efficacy against COVID-19. Furthermore, the study used very high concentrations of ivermectin that were many times higher than the doses approved for use in people[6]. Contrary to the video’s claim, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study by López-Medina et al. showed that ivermectin is unlikely to be effective in patients with mild COVID-19[7]. This study was well-designed and doesn’t possess many of the limitations present in the clinical trials cited in Lawrie’s meta-analysis. Since this study was double-blinded, neither the trial participants nor the researchers knew if they had received or administered the placebo or the drug being tested. This design helps to eliminate bias. That being said, the authors concluded that larger trials need to be conducted to better understand the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. The video also misleads viewers by suggesting that safety data regarding a drug’s use for one purpose applies to different uses. Although scientists have known about ivermectin for more than forty years and it has been used to treat parasitic infections, this isn’t relevant to the safety of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. Simply because a drug is safe to use for one disease doesn’t mean that it’s safe to use for another disease. Physiological changes produced by one disease doesn’t translate to the same changes in the case of another disease. The differences in physiological states can mean that the drug is safe to use for certain diseases, but not others. Indeed, many drugs have contraindications, or conditions in which the drug shouldn’t be used because it can harm the patient. In short, while ivermectin is safe to use for treating parasitic infections, this doesn’t automatically mean it will be safe for COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we also don’t know how ivermectin may interact with other drugs given as standard treatment against COVID-19 and the risks associated with these potential interactions. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that ivermectin is safe for COVID-19 patients on the basis of its safety for treating parasitic infections. Why do you keep copy and pasting almost whole articles that you link to? is it some kind of Search Engine Optimization thing? Are you trying to make it look like you are capable of writing more than just the kind of ranting we see so often in first two lines of your post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightowl Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 1 hour ago, zugzwang said: Tess Lawrie is a denialist crank and bad faith actor pretending to be a scientist. Her methodical 'explanations' are unevidenced, non-peer reviewed hokum. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-isnt-a-highly-effective-drug-for-treating-covid-19-tess-lawrie/ Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for treating parasitic infections, however many have called for its use to treat COVID-19, which is caused by a virus. Its antiviral efficacy hasn’t been demonstrated in people, but in vitro studies, which are performed outside of living organisms, have shown that ivermectin has antiviral activity against some viruses, such as dengue[1] and Zika virus[2]. In vitro studies typically involve artificial conditions that don’t represent conditions in the human body. Clinical trials on the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19 have also been done, some of which were indeed published and included in Lawrie’s meta-analysis. However, there are several issues with Lawrie’s meta-analysis. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, unlike published studies in scientific journals, and several of the studies used by the FLCCC and included in Lawrie’s review have also not been peer-reviewed[3-5]. The lack of peer review means that scientists with relevant expertise, such as epidemiologists and biostatisticians, haven’t independently reviewed the research. Peer review is an important step in the scientific publishing process, as it helps authors identify and correct substantial errors or shortcomings in their studies. It can also help to determine the quality of a given study. For example, some publications may contain very strong scientific evidence and novel discoveries, while others may have only weak research to back up their hypotheses. Overall, peer review can help prevent the spread of exaggerated or unsupported scientific claims. Both Lawrie and the FLCCC cited three ongoing clinical trials testing the effects of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that produced inconclusive results, as well as a report by Juan Chamie, a data analyst with no training in biology or medicine. Overall, presenting these studies and clinical trials as evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 without acknowledging their limitations is inaccurate and misleading. Notably, a preprint study by Elgazzar et al., used in Lawrie’s meta-analysis, was withdrawn in July 2021 after numerous issues with the study were detected. Among these issues were plagiarism, potential data fabrication, and data that was inconsistent with the study’s protocol. These issues were uncovered by student Jack Lawrence, who analyzed the preprint for a class assignment. A summary of the results and limitations of some clinical studies on the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 is available on the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines website. For example, some limitations of these clinical studies included small sample size and vague definitions of disease severity. For instance, if the severity of symptoms is poorly defined, it becomes difficult to objectively assess the level of improvement provided by a drug treatment, if any. Furthermore, some studies did not have a placebo control at all. Without a placebo control, we cannot exclude the bias created by the placebo effect. The placebo effect occurs when a participant’s belief that she or he is receiving an effective treatment produces a positive effect on their symptoms, even though they have actually been given a placebo with no active effect on their illness. Furthermore, some of the studies would draw claims upon observations, which were not statistically significant, i.e. it could not be ruled out that all the results occurred only by chance. The focus on ivermectin as a potential drug against COVID-19 started with an in vitro study published by Caly et al. in 2020 showed that ivermectin had antiviral effects against the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, in cell cultures[6]. Although this result provided researchers with a justification for continuing studies of the drug, this study in itself didn’t provide evidence of ivermectin’s clinical efficacy against COVID-19. Furthermore, the study used very high concentrations of ivermectin that were many times higher than the doses approved for use in people[6]. Contrary to the video’s claim, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study by López-Medina et al. showed that ivermectin is unlikely to be effective in patients with mild COVID-19[7]. This study was well-designed and doesn’t possess many of the limitations present in the clinical trials cited in Lawrie’s meta-analysis. Since this study was double-blinded, neither the trial participants nor the researchers knew if they had received or administered the placebo or the drug being tested. This design helps to eliminate bias. That being said, the authors concluded that larger trials need to be conducted to better understand the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. The video also misleads viewers by suggesting that safety data regarding a drug’s use for one purpose applies to different uses. Although scientists have known about ivermectin for more than forty years and it has been used to treat parasitic infections, this isn’t relevant to the safety of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. Simply because a drug is safe to use for one disease doesn’t mean that it’s safe to use for another disease. Physiological changes produced by one disease doesn’t translate to the same changes in the case of another disease. The differences in physiological states can mean that the drug is safe to use for certain diseases, but not others. Indeed, many drugs have contraindications, or conditions in which the drug shouldn’t be used because it can harm the patient. In short, while ivermectin is safe to use for treating parasitic infections, this doesn’t automatically mean it will be safe for COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we also don’t know how ivermectin may interact with other drugs given as standard treatment against COVID-19 and the risks associated with these potential interactions. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that ivermectin is safe for COVID-19 patients on the basis of its safety for treating parasitic infections. Denialist crank and bad faith actor...it's been a week since you've used those standard responses to everyone who doesn't tow the line 🤣🤣🤣 Please tell you copy and pasted that war and peace of a post and didn't spend ages typing all that out 😲 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Speed1987 said: Beta variant is here now lads, its in France if it gets here we are ******ed. It can evade the vaccine.... That means the last year and a half was for ****** all. When the cases numbers increase and hospitals get full, cue Boris to come on TV and lock us down, excuse new beta variant. 🤣🤣🤣 It's getting comical now. Then negative interest rates, loads of more free money and HPI to the moon. Winter 2021 lockdown and 2022 is going to be such a gas. You will laugh so hard that you accidentally knock over your candle and set fire to your bowl of sawdust meal, after the compulsory "vaccination" of critical infrastructure workers. As this video demonstrates, you can never get enough scanning, testing, wiring yourself up, wrapping things in plastic (like Drumkits), and wearing masks (4:24). ....and your pets. Suffice to say, that music video looks pretty COVID safe. All it needed was a Psi symbol at 0:36, instead of Phi, which out of all greek letters, is the most similar to the Psi symbol used to represent the synthetic protein which replaces Uracil in the mRNA of mRNA vaccines. Edited July 17, 2021 by Arpeggio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confusion of VIs Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 Why picking a fight with France on quarantine is a bad omen - however you interpret it There are reasons to be sceptical about the new amber-plus plan for those returning from France The government really does seem to be losing it badly, apparently the justification for re-imposing quarantine is because the beta variant is circulating in France. Which is strange as its incidence in lower in percentage terms than in London and far lower in terms of case numbers than the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said: Why picking a fight with France on quarantine is a bad omen - however you interpret it There are reasons to be sceptical about the new amber-plus plan for those returning from France The government really does seem to be losing it badly, apparently the justification for re-imposing quarantine is because the beta variant is circulating in France. Which is strange as its incidence in lower in percentage terms than in London and far lower in terms of case numbers than the UK. Maybe they don't want people to see the massive protests in France in over 100 towns and cities over the domestic COVID passport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 4 hours ago, Sour Mash said: So much for vaccines being the one true solution. For the millionth time, the vaccines aren't 100% effective at preventing infection, hospitalisation and deaths. But they are a lot better than no vaccine, since they do help with all of those things. Citing one person as getting COVID, even if it's the heath secretary, proves absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightowl Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, Arpeggio said: Maybe they don't want people to see the massive protests in France in over 100 towns and cities over the domestic COVID passport? Ha, dont worry the media will ensure those protests arent seen. Did anyone know Athens has seen loads of protests regarding vaccines recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) 40 minutes ago, nightowl said: Ha, dont worry the media will ensure those protests arent seen. Did anyone know Athens has seen loads of protests regarding vaccines recently? True, news is crap. I knew about that. Some police are joining protestors in France. South Africa is an apocalypse. Truck protest in Sydney AU. Protests in Melbourne. NZ Farmers are p*ssed. Edited July 17, 2021 by Arpeggio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Hun Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, nightowl said: Ha, dont worry the media will ensure those protests arent seen. Did anyone know Athens has seen loads of protests regarding vaccines recently? Top quality conspiracy crap, well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 22 minutes ago, nightowl said: Ha, don't worry the media will ensure those protests arent seen. Did anyone know Athens has seen loads of protests regarding vaccines recently? Oh yes, almost forgot. FBI Informants were among those who assassinated president Moise of Haiti. Now that the president has been killed, Haiti is getting vaccinations......which they really needed. As you can see Haiti had a whopping 501 deaths with a positive PCR test: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/haiti/ 5 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: Top quality conspiracy crap, well done. The reason I already knew this was covered in Reuters, is because it stands out due to Reuters being one of the channels that one would not expect to cover it. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/athens-thousands-rally-against-covid-19-vaccinations-2021-07-14/ The overhead view is better... 5 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: Top quality conspiracy crap, well done. There, saved you a little time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coypondboy Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) No one is following the rules anymore herd immunity will save the day but there will be thousands of deaths over the coming months. Bournemouth beach today and in the evening thousands wandering around eating and drinking inside and out no mask to be seen and thats before we can legally do it on Monday. UK now no 1 in the world for new daily cases Edited July 17, 2021 by coypondboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said: Why picking a fight with France on quarantine is a bad omen - however you interpret it There are reasons to be sceptical about the new amber-plus plan for those returning from France The government really does seem to be losing it badly, apparently the justification for re-imposing quarantine is because the beta variant is circulating in France. Which is strange as its incidence in lower in percentage terms than in London and far lower in terms of case numbers than the UK. BJ and Macron are rumoured to be thick as thieves. Could it all be a plot to get as many as possible jabbed? I'm expecting an 11th hour U-turn from BJ. Think it through, massive vaccination push before freedom day, then U-turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 46 minutes ago, Peter Hun said: Top quality conspiracy crap, well done. Protests flare in France and Greece over new coronavirus restrictions, partial vaccine mandates - The Washington Post Protests flared in France and Greece on Wednesday as residents angry over coronavirus curbs and vaccine mandates in both countries marched against new, stricter regulations that they say discriminate against people unwilling to be inoculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightowl Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 30 minutes ago, coypondboy said: No one is following the rules anymore herd immunity will save the day but there will be thousands of deaths over the coming months. Bournemouth beach today and in the evening thousands wandering around eating and drinking inside and out no mask to be seen and thats before we can legally do it on Monday. UK now no 1 in the world for new daily cases Remember the same happened in Bournemouth in summer 2020 and local tptb declared "a situation"...and nothing much resulted from it all anyway? In any case isnt it nice to see people enjoying life eating a diet of chips and icecreams instead of a diet of fear? Do you have any comparison of testing numbers each of those countries are performing? 15 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: BJ and Macron are rumoured to be thick as thieves. Could it all be a plot to get as many as possible jabbed? I'm expecting an 11th hour U-turn from BJ. Think it through, massive vaccination push before freedom day, then U-turn. A plot? maybe, but there are plenty of people pushing for digital IDs so maybe not BJ or Macron plotting themselves just being 'advised' on their course of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 13 minutes ago, nightowl said: Remember the same happened in Bournemouth in summer 2020 and local tptb declared "a situation"...and nothing much resulted from it all anyway? In any case isnt it nice to see people enjoying life eating a diet of chips and icecreams instead of a diet of fear? Do you have any comparison of testing numbers each of those countries are performing? A plot? maybe, but there are plenty of people pushing for digital IDs so maybe not BJ or Macron plotting themselves just being 'advised' on their course of action. Advisers will likely be involved, top politicians don't do detail. Ten minute phone conversation to establish intent then over to the minions to implement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 In France and Germany, those who reject vaccines find doors increasingly shut - The Washington Post The French government says the measures are essential to revive a flagging inoculation campaign — which had stalled at around 53 percent for first shots — and to prevent a deadly fourth wave of the virus. But thousands of protesters rallied against the measures Saturday, demanding Macron’s resignation and urging the government to reverse its plans. Protests were held in several cities, including Paris, Marseille and Montpellier, drawing the support of politicians from across the far right and far left of the political spectrum. Nearly 114,000 protesters joined marches across France, according to the Interior Ministry. Protesters in Paris chanted, “No to the health dictatorship!” and “Freedom!” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 COVID-19: A quarantine dodge by Boris Johnson would unleash a massive 'do as I say, not as I do' row | Politics News | Sky News Further to this, BBC News are reporting that BJ and Sunak have indeed decided that the self isolation rules do not apply to them. The arrogance of this government is breath-taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightowl Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 12 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: COVID-19: A quarantine dodge by Boris Johnson would unleash a massive 'do as I say, not as I do' row | Politics News | Sky News Further to this, BBC News are reporting that BJ and Sunak have indeed decided that the self isolation rules do not apply to them. The arrogance of this government is breath-taking. One rule for them etc. Even Patrick Vallance was interviewed and he was supportive of still wearing masks in crowded areas...until he got an ticket to Wimbledon VIP enclosure and did the opposite. Still such hypocrisy has its uses, as it reminds people if the 'elite' are safe from the virus we all are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.