Coronavirus - UK
-
-
@MiketheSnow But wait. There will be a booster in due time!!
I don't care whether people wear masks as long as they don't expect me to wear one. They are useless anyway but they serve as comfort to those in bad health, like to virtue signal and have anxiety issues.
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow But wait. There will be a booster in due time!!
I don't care whether people wear masks as long as they don't expect me to wear one. They are useless anyway but they serve as comfort to those in bad health, like to virtue signal and have anxiety issues.
Agreed
But can see the usual fucktards making them compulsory on public transport and in certain settings again given half the chance to ‘show their power’
Cue Drakeford
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
GET FUCKED SAGE
Can't believe people are already wearing them again in London
We popped into Regent Street on the train/tube yesterday. I don't recall seeing one mask on our journey. Even walking through Green and Hyde Parks where it was absolutely stacked and they're setting up for the coronation.
-
@Bones said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
GET FUCKED SAGE
Can't believe people are already wearing them again in London
We popped into Regent Street on the train/tube yesterday. I don't recall seeing one mask on our journey. Even walking through Green and Hyde Parks where it was absolutely stacked and they're setting up for the coronation.
Good
Down Greenwich way a different story apparently
-
To quote Taupin & John 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word'
-
I actually thought he (Dawkins) came out of that as quite measured and reasonable, as did the interviewer despite his clear slant on things. Dawkins main point is that in such a short space of time within a period of great turmoil it is rare for science to provide a clear cut answer. The counter to that was to give the population the truth - ie we don't know and let them make up their own minds and to this I would say two words to you.
Boaty McBoatface.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
I actually thought he (Dawkins) came out of that as quite measured and reasonable, as did the interviewer despite his clear slant on things. Dawkins main point is that in such a short space of time within a period of great turmoil it is rare for science to provide a clear cut answer. The counter to that was to give the population the truth - ie we don't know and let them make up their own minds and to this I would say two words to you.
Boaty McBoatface.
The tweet which was referenced was from Spring 21
He'd had enough time to get off the bandwagon by that point in time
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
The counter to that was to give the population the truth - ie we don't know and let them make up their own minds.
Ironically given what we know now this probably would have resulted in better outcomes for most.
Unless of course we're all comfortable with the greatest wealth transfer of money in the history of the world from poor people to rich people - in which case carry on then.
-
Ironically using the “given what we know now” stance actually supports his statements.
As to the “better off” and “biggest transfer of wealth “ statements, any actual assertations, measurements, numbers, facts? Or is it just opinion?
-
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
Ironically given what we know now this probably would have resulted in better outcomes for most.
Hindsight again. Leaders just didn't have that option. They needed to balance decisions & statements against their effect on public perception and behavior. If they were brutally honest and said "we don't know", there would likely have been panic - a point Dawkins makes really well.
Could things have been handled better? Absolutely and probably will be if we get another pandemic.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
Dawkins main point is that in such a short space of time within a period of great turmoil it is rare for science to provide a clear cut answer.
Yep. I clearly recall Vallance & Whitty - both eminent men of science - making that point time and time again during the pandemic. When everyone in the media was raging about bad the UK death rates were, they were cautioning us to look at long-term excess death rates -which would take years to quantity accurately
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
Ironically given what we know now this probably would have resulted in better outcomes for most.
Hindsight again. Leaders just didn't have that option. They needed to balance decisions & statements against their effect on public perception and behavior. If they were brutally honest and said "we don't know", there would likely have been panic - a point Dawkins makes really well.
Could things have been handled better? Absolutely and probably will be if we get another pandemic.
Not if that fuckwit menace Ferguson is anywhere near the discussion
-
My big takeaway from the pandemic - and the 'climate emergency' - is life mandated by the models and the modelers is a recipe for disaster
-
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
Stochastic modelling = current best guess*
*may be liable to multiple changes
Chicken Little's best guess
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
Ironically given what we know now this probably would have resulted in better outcomes for most.
Hindsight again. Leaders just didn't have that option. They needed to balance decisions & statements against their effect on public perception and behavior. If they were brutally honest and said "we don't know", there would likely have been panic - a point Dawkins makes really well.
Could things have been handled better? Absolutely and probably will be if we get another pandemic.
Leaving them free to make different mistakes
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
Ironically given what we know now this probably would have resulted in better outcomes for most.
Hindsight again. Leaders just didn't have that option. They needed to balance decisions & statements against their effect on public perception and behavior. If they were brutally honest and said "we don't know", there would likely have been panic - a point Dawkins makes really well.
Could things have been handled better? Absolutely and probably will be if we get another pandemic.
Leaving them free to make different mistakes
Probably - as the variables will have changed too.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
Ironically using the “given what we know now” stance actually supports his statements.
As to the “better off” and “biggest transfer of wealth “ statements, any actual assertations, measurements, numbers, facts? Or is it just opinion?
A simple google search should help you out there and you can draw your own conclusions. But a few examples are below.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Windows97 said in Coronavirus - UK:
Ironically given what we know now this probably would have resulted in better outcomes for most.
Hindsight again. Leaders just didn't have that option. They needed to balance decisions & statements against their effect on public perception and behavior. If they were brutally honest and said "we don't know", there would likely have been panic - a point Dawkins makes really well.
Could things have been handled better? Absolutely and probably will be if we get another pandemic.
Who actually created the panic however?
People went to extraordinary lengths to make covid out like it was a killer virus akin to the one out of Stephen King's "The Stand".
Most of the justification was based on predictive models that turned out to be hopelessly inaccurate and seemingly never updated with real data to determine the accuracy there-of, or if the responses based off these increasingly inaccurate models were proportionate.
In short people over-reacted and panicked and this kicked off a chain reaction.
What's most odd about it is that we supposedly live in a world where "social justice" is top of mind...
So for the people adversely effected by covid are there going to be reparation's for them, some form of social justice in restoring what they lost, apologies for the rights that got taken away?
Yet people don't seem to care, or it's brushed away as hindsight.
None of this makes sense to me, the response, the lack of adjustment based off data, the lack of empathy when proven "they were wrong" and the fact that many, many people got incredibly rich of the enforced suffering of others.
None of this seems right or just.