11-18-2020, 12:21 PM
(11-18-2020, 10:30 AM)billybassett Wrote: The dangerous fact is that the govt is allowed to publish stats and data with no reference, no transparency and no accountability. And make decisions on the basis of that. The BMJ article was proof of all that.
The fact that they refuse to, publish the amount of beds available across the country each week
The fact they refuse to publish the false positive rate for the PCR
The fact they used 3wk old data to enforce an unnecessary lockdown
The fact they've published no information on the costs of lockdown to the health wellbeing and finances of the people and the country.
The fact they changed the reporting rules and method but don't signpost them
The fact that the more sensitive LHR test has proven what a sham the PCR test is but they've dodged the Q so far
I know that last post is another dig at me. I don't care. And I see Deko weighs in with his useless waste of time posts as well.
I think of the 2 of us you're information is way more dangerous. It's one-dimensional and fed from the bbc and govt and has no context whatsoever. You've sided yourself with Hancock Johnson and the SAGE modelling team.
Your approach to defend your position is to call me a liar and gullible. It's an easy deflection to a narrow minded and locked in mindset.
If you really really believe that every person registered as a Covid death actually died specifically from Covid, if you actually believe the PCR test is a valid way of identifying positive cases, if you really believe that through the power of covid we've eliminated flu and if you actually believe handling 1 disease at the cost of all others is correct then there really is no helping you.
I actually don't think you're doing it on purpose now I actually think you believe we should be locked away until the virus is "cured". I did at one point think you had an open mind but as you consistently dodge the question about whether since June you think there's been a net benefit to society I now know what the answer is. I actually feel a bit sorry for you and those you must inculcate with some of the information you provide. That's probably more dangerous to you and 99.966% of the population you meet than actually acquiring covid.
Could you be anymore condescending? There is a clear rationale behind B1s use of data and on the other side those who are trying to find data that fits their beliefs.
If you want to change people’s mind to support your beliefs then you should try not to insult them along the way.
Please note usual suspect(s), I never try to persuade others to change their mind I just offer an opinion on what decisions they made sometimes rudely. That’s the difference... I’m not proclaiming I’m doing a public health campaign. Sorry I had to put the last sentience into the reply but I’m preempting the usual dragged up quote / misquote nonsense.