Re: Neil Oliver Comments - Here we go again

[MB]

On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.

Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <so2m1m$s7l$2...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:

> > https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a watch, sounds

> > about right to me.

> Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.

I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news elsewhere and
they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me eager to bother to
listen. More polite to look away when someone makes themself look like a
banana. But from the dissection I'd guessed it might suit Bob OK.*

For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a covid
denier, etc. Presumably on the basis that he is as good an epidemiologist,
etc as I am a lumberjack.

i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up their
low ratings might use just to suck in the unwary and boost their figures.

Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!

If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now enlighten
us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress us. Beyond that,
I'll wait until he's read and understood the book on CC I recimmended
for him... and shows he now actually understands it.

* BTW I don't look at youtoob references anyway unless someone outlines
what they're about. Saves a lot of bother and accidentally making those
which are crap seem 'popular' - and boosting the rep of the producer of
twaddle.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Pamela]

I watched the video. He starts off with worries about what our
government has been doing to keep the public under the thumb with
propaganda etc etc. "State sponsored bandwaggon" blah blah. Of
course, there are no facts but plenty of diatribe.

It's the usual paranoia from the lunatic fringe.

That's what happens when you learn your science from a historian.

One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out into
the open.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <59930d...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5993036...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf

> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <so2m1m$s7l$2...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
> > > > https://www.youtoob.com/watch?v=P g F M k X x X 0 7 U Worth a
> > > > watch, sounds about right to me.

> > > Would not waste my time watching his ramblings.

> > I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news elsewhere
> > and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me eager to bother
> > to listen. More polite to look away when someone makes themself look
> > like a banana. But from the dissection I'd guessed it might suit Bob
> > OK.*

> That's it go for the personal as usual.

Looks like my guess was spot-on, though.

[snip Bob's multifaceted wishful-thinking ramble ]

Get back to us when you're read the book and show signs of understanding
it.

I've found NO's TV progs on Ancient Scottish history quite interesting. I
assume on that topic he knows his subject. But that doesn't automatically
mean he has a clue about some other topic.

I also have a wooden 'school' ruler with a "Scottish Ruler" title. On one
side it has the usual inches and cm. On the other a dated list of the
monarchs of Scotland. But it omits any OSAF about covid or CC. :-)

[Java Jive]

On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U

> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.

At least it wasn't as interminable as the last one, but I still didn't
get to the end, because it was still a waste of time to watch a man who
peddles increasingly conspiracy theory fake news and laced with negative
stereotypes that increase in number with each passing minute.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Java Jive]

On 29/11/2021 16:31, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5993036...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>

>> I've heard about his recent ramblings on Gor Blymy Non-news
>> elsewhere and they've been dissected there. Can't say it made me
>> eager to bother to listen. More polite to look away when someone
>> makes themself look like a banana. But from the dissection I'd
>> guessed it might suit Bob OK.*
>

> That's it go for the personal as usual.

HYPOSHITE ...

> But of course it was obvious that the agenda followers, the lockdown
> and anti-freedom fanatics, the vax/mask obsessed, the woke and the
> narrow minded would pour scorn.

... GOING FOR THE PERSONAL AS USUAL!

> Purely by coincidence, this is also doing twitter..
>
> h t t p s : / / w w w . d a i l y m a i l . c o . u k / d e b a t e / a r t i c l e - 1 0 2 5 2 7 7 9 / D O M I N I C - L A W S O N - L e f t - l o v e - l o c k d o w n s . h t m l

How typical of the Fail to argue from one isolated individual to a
ridiculously misleading headline describing the entirety of the left as
loving lockdowns, and also to major on the fact that she's a communist
rather than discussing the worth or otherwise of what she was saying.

>> For the unwary: If its the same item, then it has him acting as a
>> covid denier, etc.
>

> Love people that use the "denier" insult it says so much about them.
>
> I didn't see him deny covid but then again, I watched it. ;-)

Well, not quite a covid denier, in that he didn't deny the pandemic's
existence, but he did downplay the potential seriousness of the new
variant, which is premature, to say the least. He then floundered into
a quagmire of negative stereotypes of his own creation, at which point I
left him drowning in his own filth.

>> Presumably on the basis that he is as good an epidemiologist, etc
>> as I am a lumberjack.
>

> It's political commentary!

Yes, and of the worst emotional blackmail sort.

>> i.e. sort of thing a station depererate for ANY viewers to bulk up
>> their low ratings
>

> and yet the figure are often higher in the evening than BBC news or
> Sky.

That's what happens when you pander to the lowest common denominator
market with emotive mud-slinging, it doesn't make what you say
worthwhile or right though.

>> might use just to suck in the unwary and boost their figures.
>

> You really are so nice.

Whereas you are a repugnant bigot.

>> Did you know the Elvis *is* still alive!
>

> Again petty and silly.
>
> About time to attack me again...

You put yourself in the way of it constantly by your own attacks on
everyone else who disagrees with you, while refusing to examine any
actual evidence given against you, as in ...

> And here it is.

>
>> If the item was about something else, no doubt Bob wil now
>> enlighten us, and we'll realise it is sensible and it will impress
>> us. Beyond that, I'll wait until he's read and understood the book
>> on CC I recimmended for him... and shows he now actually
>> understands it.
>

> You clearly have a religion and a bible and can't understand why
> others aren't following your creed. Brainwashed.

... exactly the above. I've read the book, it's not a bible, has
nothing to do with brainwashing, there are things in it I don't quite
buy, but nevertheless it a perfectly balanced round-up of how man now
dominates the global environment and has more effect on it than many
natural forces.

> Do you not think I've read books on this because I have but of
> course, they're not of your faith.

They shouldn't be of *ANY* faith, they should be scientific.

> I know there is no point arguing with religious fanatics but..
>
> There is no climate crisis.
> Climate is cyclic and man is all but irrelevant, we're very lucky we
> live in a good bit of that cycle like when they built the cathedrals.
> The Hubris of man, Neil Oliver talks about that too.

TROLL! PROVEN LIES REPEATED AGAIN!

> Snow here (midlands) for 3 days in November and very cold that CO2
> isn't doing much to stop it freezing.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REPEATED AGAIN! How many times must it be explained
to you that 3 days' local weather is not global climate???!!!

> Very cold last winter too. Seen
> the temperatures in Antarctica during the winter there? Record warm
> it wasn't and will not be mentioned on the BBC.

TROLL! PROVEN LIES REPEATED AGAIN! How many times must it be explained
to you that 1 years' local weather is not global climate???!!!

> Oh yes but that's weather isn't it.

Exactly, so why are you mentioning it?

> So why when we get two warm days
> in July does the BBC start with "scientists say" every time?

You claim never to watch the BBC, so how could you possibly know?

> But I suppose if you believe that the world's temperature is so
> critical on the level of CO2 despite the history of the planet shows
> that it isn't then rationality is in trouble, again as Neil says.

Your, and I'm beginning to think perhaps Neil's, irrationality is the
problem, not everyone else's rationality.

[Java Jive]

On 29/11/2021 19:47, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5993156...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Get back to us when you're read the book and show signs of
>> understanding it.
>

> Oh it's us now is it. I love it.
>
> Here is the full horror of CC in central England.
> Be brave, it's very scary.
> h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c l i m a t e / F u l l _ h o r r o r . j p g

Yet another pointless breach of someone else's copyright, apparently
from here ...

h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / K e i l l e r D o n / s t a t u
s / 1 4 6 5 0 8 4 6 7 9 5 6 4 9 6 7 9 3 8 / p h o t o / 1

... which shows the classic denialist trick of shrinking the vertical
scale to obscure the approximately 1-2degC (by eye) of warming from 1660
at the left hand end to now at the right-hand end.

> Thanks but no thanks, I'll keep common sense and stay well away from
> woke idiocy and climate propaganda nonsense.

And thereby remain an ignorant fool.

[Roderick Stewart]

It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree with
them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation I
watched said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about the
inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response to it.
It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom of a
general abandonment of reason which has also affected the whole of our
society. At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of
the virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I
understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.

Rod.

[Indy Jess John]

On the TV news this morning was an explanation that the information that
has so far been provided by South Africa is what the Omicron variant has
done to the young people infected by it, and on the whole this has been
mild.

The information that is missing is what happens to the elderly if they
catch it. It will take a couple of weeks of tests to find that out
unless it does spread in the wild to the elderly. The new regulations
of when a mask should be worn etc is to buy time for the investigations.

It shows that the logic doesn't need to be questioned. The new variant
might be equally as mild for the elderly as it appears to be for the
young, or it might be like the original Wuhan strain which was mild for
the young and pretty fatal for the elderly. Buying a bit of time by
minimally inconveniencing everybody while tests find that out without
actually infecting those who might be vulnerable makes sense.

Jim

[Pamela]

On 09:09 30 Nov 2021, Roderick Stewart said:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:16:59 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 14:40 29 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
>>> In article <so2m1m$s7l$2...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2021 13:31, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>> >

>>>> > [...]

>>propaganda etc etc. "State sponsored bandwagon" blah blah. Of

>>course, there are no facts but plenty of diatribe.
>>
>>It's the usual paranoia from the lunatic fringe.
>>
>>That's what happens when you learn your science from a historian.
>>
>>One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out
>>into the open.
>
> It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree with
> them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation I
> watched said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about the
> inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response to
> it. It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom of a
> general abandonment of reason which has also affected the whole of
> our society.

It was a diatribe with no facts to back up his allegations about
government behaviour. Like so many Covid-sceptics, he takes an example of
some view or action suitable for its time and then complains of
inconsistency because it was not suitable much later when the facts,
understanding and objectives had changed.

His talk is all diatribe. It reminds me of how George Galloway used to
present his ideas.

"Fear has been the key to the unprecedented power of politicians and
their scientists. Fear has also blinded people to the reality of
manipulation and mass hypnosis used to make them and keep them
compliant" ... blah blah blah.

He goes on to suggest the new variant is essentially a timely invention
by an oppressive ruling class. He then says "Covid even made some
scientists unlearn science" but gives no evidence.

"It's apparent to anyone with their eyes open that those scientists and
doctors have got themselves into a proper tangle now." Well I haven't
drunk Neil Oliver's Kool-Aid and have no idea what he's talking about but
here he's playing the messiah who can see through all the "lies" of the
world. Yet he gives no proof.

The man appears to have an inferiority complex and probably appeals to
others who are the same. He will no doubt be cashing in on being an
opposition voice.

He's certainly off his trolley. Maybe he'll catch Covid and shut up. In
real life he's in a row about encouraging his followers not to comply
with public health regulations and mask wearing.

> At a time when we are told to be worried by a new
> variant of the virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and
> from which I understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to
> be questioned.
>
> Rod.

I wonder if you're jumping to conclusions about the mildness of Omicron
in all ages of the UK population. The government has asked for a few
weeks to assess the variant. One of the South African doctor's patients
was only 6-years old and all were young.

Meanwhile our government is taking take sensible precautions to restrict
the spread of the new variant if it turns out to be a danger. What's so
hard about wearing a mask except to those who harbour a pathological
resentment at being told what steps to take for public health?

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <so3g6c$4gq$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Your, and I'm beginning to think perhaps Neil's, irrationality is the
> problem, not everyone else's rationality.

To be fair, it doesn't surprise me that a historian might be clueless about
science or understand the scientific method and how to apply it. Most
scientists probably don't know much about the ancient history of Scotland,
either.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <mnpbqgt89pp5v4jel...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart

<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >I watched the video. He starts off with worries about what our
> >government has been doing to keep the public under the thumb with
> >propaganda etc etc. "State sponsored bandwaggon" blah blah. Of
> >course, there are no facts but plenty of diatribe.
> >
> >It's the usual paranoia from the lunatic fringe.
> >
> >That's what happens when you learn your science from a historian.
> >
> >One side benefit of Covid is that it has driven the nutcases out into
> >the open.

> It's too easy to dismiss someone with an insult if you disagree with
> them. I don't know what you all watched, but the presentation I watched
> said very little about the virus itself, but a lot about the
> inconsistencies and lack of logic in the government's response to it.

In itself that seems a reasonable view given, for example, the dubious way
loadsa dosh has been handed out to a few pals of top Tories, often without
real competition or scrutiny, etc. But that's a genuine political point
about sleaze. Not a doubt about the behaviour of the virus, or science.

> It was then suggested that this lack of logic was a symptom of a general
> abandonment of reason which has also affected the whole of our society.

Again a fair point given all the denialist delusions about vaxxing being a
plot to control us, inject microchips, etc.

> At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the virus
> with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I understand
> nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.

IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be
'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more
infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in behaviour,
we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control before we can
evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched
NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering
amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
NHS effort.

At least, all the reports I've encountered say this, and in terms of the
science it makes sense.

So are you saying that Bob's Historian actually said nothing 'anti-vax',
etc? WRT Government, it can drift into the different topic of what
a bunch of get-rich-and-favour-your-mates goons they are. Their
behaviour wrt covid is just one facet of that.

[Jim Lesurf]

On 30 Nov, no...@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
> So are you saying that Bob's Historian actually said nothing 'anti-vax',
> etc? WRT Government, it can drift into the different topic of what a
> bunch of get-rich-and-favour-your-mates goons they are. Their behaviour
> wrt covid is just one facet of that.

Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video. I'd decided to try it a
short time ago, but youtoob are currently 'throttling' the use of
youtube-dl. So I had to furtle about to change to yt-dlp instead. Just got
it to fetch an item about Blumlein, and t'werks. So I'll give NO a go.

[Pamela]

On 15:44 30 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
> On 30 Nov, no...@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> So are you saying that Bob's Historian actually said nothing
>> 'anti-vax', etc? WRT Government, it can drift into the different
>> topic of what a bunch of get-rich-and-favour-your-mates goons they
>> are. Their behaviour wrt covid is just one facet of that.
>
> Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video. I'd decided to
> try it a short time ago, but youtoob are currently 'throttling' the
> use of youtube-dl. So I had to furtle about to change to yt-dlp
> instead. Just got it to fetch an item about Blumlein, and t'werks.
> So I'll give NO a go.
>
> Jim

Does this YouTube replayer help?

http://www.viewpure.com/PgFMkXxX07U

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Don't even know who he is.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:so2m1m$s7l$2...@dont-email.me...

[Java Jive]

On 30/11/2021 19:50, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <so510k$ogq$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the TV news this morning was an explanation that the information
>> that has so far been provided by South Africa is what the Omicron
>> variant has done to the young people infected by it, and on the
>> whole this has been mild.
>

> Yes.

>
>> The information that is missing is what happens to the elderly if
>> they catch it.
>

> What will happen if the elderly catch the next variant or the one
> after that or, the one after that .......... When does it stop?

It stops when it stops, not because dishonest and politically motivated
arseholes like you keep complaining.

>> It will take a couple of weeks of tests to find
>> that out unless it does spread in the wild to the elderly. The
>> new regulations of when a mask should be worn etc is to buy time
>> for the investigations.
>

> Except masks do between SFA and zero to stop the spread of the virus.
> Look at Germany or even Wales to see that where masks have been
> compulsory. Our government and it's scientific advisors Whitty, JVT
> etc. said this again and again in April 20. Masks even the ones in
> Germany have very, very little if any effect.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED YET AGAIN!

The real world is not a lab experiment where you can vary one factor of
interest while keeping constant all the other factors that might skew
the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn from the results
of varying the one factor the are valid. You may be surprised to
discover that there have been no experiments done on whether washing
your hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, because it
wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet most of us accept
that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, and do
it without complaint. here has been no such experiment on the wearing
of face masks in a pandemic, because it would be equally unethical to do
so, nevertheless, just as you should wash your hands after going to the
toilet, so you should also wear face-masks when the situation demands
it, like being on public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public
space.

See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:

Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/

BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40

More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby boom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

> There was recently a bunch of 'put together reports' on masks saying
> that they worked. The Telegraph did a great debunk of this a couple
> of days ago, the tests were a shambles and the results biased.
> No graphs for any country in the world shows a good effect for masks.

The Telegraph's, what they laughingly call 'scientific', reporting has
been flagrantly biased, unscientific, and unethical throughout the pandemic.

> The truth about masks has been know for a long time, cloth masks in
> particular are a bad joke.

Cloth masks need to be of a densely woven material to have best
effectiveness, and they need to be worn properly, too many people don't
wear them properly.

> I realise that science is now driven by politics

Science is doing its best to guide and help in a very difficult
situation, it's your scientific denialism that is driven by politics.

> but when science
> starts changing definitions overnight and long standing plans are
> kicked into the long grass at a similar rate, we've lost reason as
> stated in the video.

The government has to respond flexibly to changes in the current
situation, such as the arrival of a new variant which appears to be more
infectious and possibly more likely (re-)infect those with reasonable
antibody levels. Would they had been this quick off the mark,
preferably even quicker, in early '20!

> Stop watching the fear porn propaganda on the BBC!

It would be more to the point to say NO to Neil Oliver.

> What masks do do, is spread fear.

Oh FFS grow up! We're not all children who need the protection of the
Big Brother of the right; we are quite capable of seeing the potential
seriousness of the situation for ourselves.

>> It shows that the logic doesn't need to be questioned.
>

> I'm sorry but yes, it does.

No, it doesn't, you need to get a grip of yourself and stop spouting
pig-ignorant crap.

>> The new variant might be equally as mild for the elderly as it
>> appears to be for the young, or it might be like the original Wuhan
>> strain which was mild for the young and pretty fatal for the
>> elderly. Buying a bit of time by minimally inconveniencing
>> everybody while tests find that out without actually infecting
>> those who might be vulnerable makes sense.
>

> The situation is very different from April 20 things have moved on.
> We have 90% plus of the population with anti-bodies and vulnerable
> people are triple jabbed if they want it. We also have improved
> treatments and I'm told that the chances of dying when you get covid
> are around 1 in a thousand similar to flu.
> Should we restrictions every year for a new flu variant?

Previous variants of covid-19 have killed 168,000 people in this
country, most of whom could have been saved by better planning and
better government policy early in the pandemic, now we have a new
variant which looks as though it could be more infectious and possible
more able to (re-)infect even those with some antibody resistance. It
would be criminal negligence on the part of the government to ignore
such a threat, and it is deeply irresponsible of people like Neil Oliver
and you to try and make political capital of the situation by seeding
fake news and emotive paranoia.

> The virus will always be with us, it will never go away. Zero covid
> is only for the funny farm people. The virus mutates constantly and
> most mutations offer no advantage to the virus but roughly every 2-3
> months a viable variant appears. They will continue to appear and
> here's the important bit - FOR EVER!
>
> So under the precautionary plan we will have to go through this loop
> several times each year - forever. This is a dystopian nightmare of
> our own making which will be our undoing if the stupid woke don't get
> us there first.

If we can't eliminate it, and it looks very unlikely to be eliminated
now, then it is predicted eventually to become relatively harmless, like
other cold and most flu strains, but that may take a few years, and
probably those years will be difficult, but they won't last for ever.

> It is known that we have 50,000 people with undiagnosed cancer.
> People too scared of covid to get checked out. Probably the same
> story with heart issues and plenty of other things.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim? Anyway, if we have so many
people believed to have undiagnosed cancer, that's all the more reason
to keep covid at bay so that the NHS can concentrate on diagnosing and
treating cancer patients rather than being overwhelmed with covid
patients, so WTF are you doing spreading propaganda encouraging people
to question and/or ignore the government's actions and thereby aid the
spread of covid?

> I realise the lockdown lovers have always not given a damn about the
> the majority and their ticking time bomb medical positions as clearly
> they have other goals.

STOP LYING!!! The above irrational name-calling is exactly why your
reputation in this ng is irrevocably in shit of your own making. No-one
wants a lockdown, they're just sometimes the least worst option.

[Java Jive]

On 30/11/2021 21:04, Java Jive wrote:
>
> There has been no such experiment on the wearing

> of face masks in a pandemic, because it would be equally unethical to do
> so, nevertheless, just as you should wash your hands after going to the
> toilet, so you should also wear face-masks when the situation demands
> it, like being on public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public
> space.

I should have clarified that I meant by that having some people wear a
mask and others not, and having them be in a controlled infective
environment.

[Pamela]

On 19:50 30 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
> It is known that we have 50,000 people with undiagnosed cancer.

By definition, it is estimated not "known".

[Pamela]

On 21:04 30 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
>
>
> [SNIP] Bob Latham's invented claims [SNIP]

>
>
> See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
> watch, and the other links are also worth reading:
>
> Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
> Scattering: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
>
> Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
> https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
>
> 8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
> https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-
> need-to-stop-believing/
>
> BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40
>
> More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby
> boom https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

Earlier today someone in uk.d-i-y posted these two useful links:

<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>

<https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pandemic-update-evidence>

Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I suspect
conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks because
wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official advice,
which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do. The points
they make on their social media forums make little sense but that
doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's misconceptions. These
disaffected misfits genuinely have psychological issues.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:58:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the virus
>> with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I understand
>> nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.
>
>IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be
>'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more
>infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in behaviour,
>we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control before we can
>evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched
>NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering
>amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
>NHS effort.

That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be
about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under our
beds just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.

Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths is
a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more emphasis.
Our government's total obsession with just one illness may result in a
great many more people dying from other things, such as untreated
cancers, or anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in time, and if
that happens, what was it all for?

But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous
opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he said in the
video in question, a video which prior to your posting (my apologies
if I've got this wrong) you had apparently not even watched yourself.

Rod.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <XnsADF2A3C...@144.76.35.252>, Pamela

<pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does this YouTube replayer help?

> http://www.viewpure.com/PgFMkXxX07U

Dunno. But I tend to prefer to fetch a file, then look at it, often on
another system.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <so63l7$ugu$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Cloth masks need to be of a densely woven material to have best
> effectiveness, and they need to be worn properly, too many people don't
> wear them properly.

I've noticed this on many 'street' broadcasts on TV. I keep getting a
feeling that many people don't even realise they *have* a nose! Other seem
unware that the basic masks have a bendy strip to fit around it and
glasses.

[Jim Lesurf]

On 30 Nov, no...@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:

> Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video.

Hmmm... The good news is that the rant video only lasts 9m 30s - so only a
short time was wasted.

No sign of any clue about science of any kind. Just a daft rant of OSAF.
NO seems to know less about science than I do about Duncan II, who did'nae
last lang according to my Scots Ruler.

TBH my main impression is that NO looked and behaved stressed and unwell to
me. Have the feeling his rant won't look good on his CV.

Oh well, shows that OffCom simply allow airspace for money. No quality
standards needed, just the money.

I'd thought his programmes on Scots (ancient) history were quite
interesting. But I now wonder what other historians think of them.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drn...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart

<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be
> >'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more
> >infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in
> >behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control
> >before we can evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on
> >the stretched NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths
> >and suffering amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of
> >covid needing so much NHS effort.

> That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be about
> to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under our beds
> just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.

The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't* make any
difference.

The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people vaxxed
*does* make a "difference" of a significant kind. And that increased
precautions like mask wearing *will* make a difference even if the new
variant is or isn't a bad one. This is likely to be true even if no measure
offers absolute protection. This is the actual science. Sadly, it seems far
too complex for NO.

> Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths is a
> particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more emphasis. Our
> government's total obsession with just one illness may result in a great
> many more people dying from other things, such as untreated cancers, or
> anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in time, and if that happens,
> what was it all for?

Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to act
sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS - and
consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE. Underfunding the NHS
whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top Tories have also made things
worse because that could have been better used in other ways.

> But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
> Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous opinions
> of the man's other presentations and not what he said in the video in
> question, a video which prior to your posting (my apologies if I've got
> this wrong) you had apparently not even watched yourself.

I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science than I'd
guessed! It's a science-free rant.

So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
founded.

[Pamela]

On 10:49 1 Dec 2021, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:58:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the
>>> virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I
>>> understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be
>>> questioned.
>>
>>IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may*
>>be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems
>>more infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change
>>in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it getting out of
>>control before we can evaluate the impact it will have - on covid
>>deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by
>>now that deaths and suffering amongst NON covid people are elevated
>>as a result of covid needing so much NHS effort.
>
> That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be
> about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under
> our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.
>
> Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths
> is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more
> emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one illness may
> result in a great many more people dying from other things, such as
> untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in
> time, and if that happens, what was it all for?

The prupose was to limit the spread and harm of the virus. The fact
you are now able to be so complacent in the face of the virus is a
testament to how well it was done.

> But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
> Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous
> opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he said in
> the video in question,

I have never seen another of Neil Oliver's videos or any of his tv
programmes. I made my judgement of his video purely on its contents.
It is tripe. Watch it again as you appear to be talking about
something else.

> a video which prior to your posting (my
> apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently not even
> watched yourself.
>
> Rod.

It's a bit like a situation where adults saved ungrateful children
from danger. Now the children demand to go out and play.

[Pamela]

On 13:00 1 Dec 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> On 30 Nov, no...@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video.
>
> Hmmm... The good news is that the rant video only lasts 9m 30s - so
> only a short time was wasted.
>
> No sign of any clue about science of any kind. Just a daft rant of
> OSAF. NO seems to know less about science than I do about Duncan II,
> who did'nae last lang according to my Scots Ruler.
>
> TBH my main impression is that NO looked and behaved stressed and
> unwell to me. Have the feeling his rant won't look good on his CV.
>
> Oh well, shows that OffCom simply allow airspace for money. No
> quality standards needed, just the money.
>
> I'd thought his programmes on Scots (ancient) history were quite
> interesting. But I now wonder what other historians think of them.
>
> Jim

Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
thousands more with his illogical arguments.

[Java Jive]

On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <5994033...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drn...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
>> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it
>>>> *may* be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since
>>>> it seems more infectious and has multiple changes which could
>>>> mean a change in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it
>>>> getting out of control before we can evaluate the impact it will
>>>> have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be
>>>> obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering amongst NON
>>>> covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
>>>> NHS effort.
>
>>> That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may*
>>> be about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide
>>> under our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference
>>> anyway.
>
>> The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't*
>> make any difference.
>
>> The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
>> vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.
>

> Yes true but the people are vaxxed..

>
>> And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
>> difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.
>

> Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better
> than anyone else. Sorry.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED YET AGAIN!

The real world is not a lab experiment where you can vary one factor of
interest while keeping constant all the other factors that might skew
the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn from the results
of varying the one factor the are valid. You may be surprised to
discover that there have been no experiments done on whether washing
your hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, because it
wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet most of us accept
that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, and do

it without complaint. Likewise, there has been no such experiment on
whether or how much the wearing of face masks in an infectious
environment reduces infection rates because it would be equally
unethical to do as asking people not to wash their hands, nevertheless,

just as you should wash your hands after going to the toilet, so you
should also wear face-masks when the situation demands it, like being on
public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public space.

See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:

Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/

BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40

More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby boom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

>> This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
>> protection. This is the actual science.
>

> Ah, claims to be science expert. A very biased one.

You are a disgustingly dishonest and hypocritical liar.

>>> Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid
>>> deaths is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot
>>> more emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one
>>> illness may result in a great many more people dying from other
>>> things, such as untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't
>>> get diagnosed in time, and if that happens, what was it all for?
>
>> Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to
>> act sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS -
>> and consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE.
>

> Nothing stops this virus except vaccines and even they have
> unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear peddling.

The unintended consequences of the vaccines are minimal, and far less
problematic than either the disease itself or other medication that
people frequently take. AFAIAA, the risk of every side effect from the
vaccines that so far has hit the news has been less from the vaccines
than from the disease itself, and less than, say, the contraceptive pill.

> As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it
> could produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what
> point will it be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of
> a new variant?
>
> One other problem with this policy is crying wolf. If we wet the bed
> each time and then the variant turns out to be nothing special and
> the same with the next one, normal people will stop responding to the
> nonsense and then if something extra nasty does come along.

Use of immaturely emotive language instead of rational argument,
presumably because you haven't actually got a rational argument. We've
already lost 168,000 people to this virus, and comparisons with other
countries that have handled the pandemic better show that most of those
deaths have been entirely avoidable. It would criminally irresponsible
of the government not to take this new variant seriously.

>> Underfunding the NHS whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top
>> Tories have also made things worse because that could have been
>> better used in other ways.
>

> Utter nonsense from the a left. The NHS problem is too many managers
> and stupid wasteful spending. Whilst the NHS employs people as
> Diversity managers on huge salaries we know they lack any priority
> and will waste any money however large on stupidity.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim.

>>> But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by
>>> Neil Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of
>>> prevous opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he
>>> said in the video in question, a video which prior to your
>>> posting (my apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently
>>> not even watched yourself.
>
>> I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science
>> than I'd guessed! It's a science-free rant.
>
>> So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
>> founded.
>

> I don't like it, so its' a rant.
>
> I can't deny a true point so it's a cherry.
>
> It's a very good point, so it's a sour cherry - I get it.
>
> Oh how the left love a controlled society and loss of freedom just
> like the communists. Listen to the self confessed commie in sage -
> always the same - lockdown, control, take away freedoms. Always the
> loony left. Any excuse to take people's freedoms away.

Nobody wants to take anybody's freedom away, but the freedoms of others
besides the selfish fringe that you represent have to be treated equally
to your own, and it's about time that you stopped whingeing like a child
and learnt to think of others besides yourself as a responsible adult.

> So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.

Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
to make.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <599409...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham

<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5994033...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
> > vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.

> Yes true but the people are vaxxed..

Yes. As I said.

> > And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
> > difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.

> Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better than
> anyone else. Sorry.

No need for you to apologise for your lack of understanding. You've been
mislead by your choice of 'expert'. However...

Having posted the NO rant as if it were 'evidence', your assertions/beliefs
might be doubted by others. And note that when comparing countries, the
assessed mask wearing rates are far from the only relevant factor.

In practice the aim is that the *combination* of measures put in place act
together to reduce the rates of infections, serious illness, and deaths.
(All different in terms of impact.) The results may also vary with local
climate, population, behaviour, density, etc.

> > This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
> > protection. This is the actual science.

> Ah, claims to be science expert.

Nope, just someone basing their understanding on what the virologists,
epidemiologists, etc, seem to be saying. Not on the basis of the views of
an archeologist appearing on Gor-Blimy Nonsense.

The basic 'science' of masks is fairly simple. Some of the virus 'load' in
the air is intercepted and captured by the mask material. This reduces the
load that gets from one person to another. Which in turn reduces the chance
of infection taking hold, or being serious, etc. That's why mask use is the
norm in risky situations.

The variations are wrt to people using optimally suitable masks and wearing
them correctly. Those factors affect the impact on infection transfer.
Hence it matters if people *do* wear masks when they should, and keep
distance, etc.

How much the infection rate is affected depends on the details of the
situation.

So far as I know, this has been standard epidemiology for a long time, and
why mask wearing is so generally used by medics and recommended for others
when a pathogen is about.

No bias. Just the basic science.

> Nothing stops this virus except vaccines

Erm, that assertion is a tad vague-and-sweeping...

You do realise that sunlight and dry air also tends to destroy a virus
given sufficient exposure? Which is one reason people are recommended to
keep their distance. AIUI a virus lacks the 'envelope' which gives some
protection to bacteria, but bacteria also tend to be damaged given
sufficient exposure.

Hence distance, propagation time, exposure, and masks can and do all
generally reduce infection likelyhood rates. Just then a matter of trying
to get a sufficient mix/combination of these so that you reduce the
infection rates significantly. Ideally to keep R below unity. This matters
less once you have deployed sufficient satisfactory vaccinations. And an
effective vaccine can make a very significant difference.

> and even they have unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear
> peddling.

Peddling scientifically-ignorant bilge also has consequences if people fall
for the delusions you and some others peddle.

> As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it could
> produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what point will it
> be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of a new variant?

Erm, you do realise that it is - as yet - quite possible that new variants
may be *less* damaging to victims than earlier versions? The problem is
that that issue isn't yet clear for the current VOC. However the comments
I've seen from epidemiologists, etc, thus far say that it is likely that
vaccination and masks will tend to help reduce infections and the
seriousness of the ones that arise. We''ll know better soon. But winding up
a vaccination campaign seems wise as a precaution at this point. If nothing
else it may lower the rate of serious illnesses and NHS pressure compared
with not doing so as we go into Winter.

Yes, new variations crop up. But from evolution's POV having variations
that are infectious but do NOT kill most hosts is long-term advantageous
for the virus because more of those hosts remain available for re-infection
later on. Killing off your own foodstock is perhaps as bad for a virus in
evolution terms as humans damaging the climate and thus making survival
harder for their own offspring!

You don't need to wet yourself about this,or deny it out of fear. You just
have to learn about the actual science upon which the above is based. Not
fall for any old rant on TV.

> So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.

Alas, the virus doesn't care what you 'value' or wish to believe.

BTW NO seems to be an archeologist. Will your next 'expert' on covid be,
say, a professional accordianist? After all, they suck and blow a lot of
air, so must know a lot more about airbourne virus transmission than an
archeologist, eh! :-)

And I expect Bob to dismiss the above. But it may help someone else who
doesn't regard GBN as the fountain of Revealed Truth about 'science'.

[williamwright]

On 01/12/2021 15:05, Pamela wrote:

>
> Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
> orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
> thousands more with his illogical arguments.
>

Don't you think he's rather sexy Pamela?

Bill

[Pamela]

Not looking like that. He needs a haircut and a shave.

[Jeff Layman]

I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this enlightening:
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

--

Jeff

[Java Jive]

However unpalatable the death of a fellow human being is - "Ask not
for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee!" - it's difficult to
resist the temptation to say: "Serves the bloody fool right!"

Probably that story will be in the next Darwin awards.

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

If anyone believes that the worst that will happen to them is that
they'll "[go] home to be with the Lord" why would they worry?

[Jeff Layman]

With any luck it'll be the Lord of Darkness!

--

Jeff

[Pamela]

Ah, the secret joys of schadenfreude!

There are now several web sites which list anti-vaxxers who died from
taking their own advice, such as this:

https://ucommblog.com/section/safety/thank-god-they-are-dead

I like this one for its frequently updated citations. They never end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

[Roderick Stewart]

Are there any websites listing all the people who decided not to be
vaccinated but *didn't* die? A balanced view should include them.

Rod.

[charles]

In article <6l7kqgp7vafllsgjg...@4ax.com>,

Haven't died yet.

> A balanced view should include them.

> Rod.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[MB]

On 03/12/2021 14:13, charles wrote:
> Haven't died yet.

Some forget that the human race has a 100% mortality rate!

[Alexander]

"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5992fd...@sick-of-spam.invalid...

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
>

If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears in
a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists:
https://www2.iono.fm/e/1125880

In our current political climate, podcasts (and the alternative media in
general) are a much better source of free and uncensored information.

On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM restrictions,
and the financial and/or political interests of the host broadcaster (and
possibly worse).

[Java Jive]

On 04/12/2021 14:30, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5992fd...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07Uv = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U

>> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
>
> If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears in
> a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists:
> h t t p s : / / w w w 2 . i o n o . f m / e / 1 1 2 5 8 8 0

The poor quality of the content is much more likely to be a problem.

> In our current political climate, podcasts (and the alternative media in
> general) are a much better source of free and uncensored information.

Not judging by their effect on you, as evidenced by the absurd
conspiracy theories you subscribe to, such as ...

> On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
> allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
> what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM restrictions,
> and the financial and/or political interests of the host broadcaster (and
> possibly worse).

QED.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <sog1bl$td6$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> On 04/12/2021 14:30, Alexander wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:5992fd...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07Uv = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U
> >> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
> >
> > If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears
> > in a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists: h t t p s : / / w
> > w w 2 . i o n o . f m / e / 1 1 2 5 8 8 0

> The poor quality of the content is much more likely to be a problem.

After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty video I
doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he may say. Watching
paint dry is probably more educational... so...

I spent a few hours today dis-assembling an ancient old microwave /
convection oven that was clapped out. Did this because, as-was, it was far
too heavy for me to lift away to make space for the new one. Dissasembled,
it was easier to remove. Seemed more profitable than watching more from NO
- with or without added 'activists'.

Presumably, such internet videos tend to be a way for someone to 'promote'
themselves. i.e. the more people watch, the more 'popular' they can be
'seen' to be. i.e. drum up income, etc, as well as make vacuous views seem
'accepted'. Were any kittens involved, playing pianos? If the GBN waffle
had included that it might have raised the intellectual level a bit.

[Alexander]

"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5995ae...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <5995a6c...@audiomisc.co.uk>,

> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
>> video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
>> may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
>

> Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion
> different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
>
> It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
> paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of
> tea.
>
> Have you been radicalised or something?
>

Him and JJ are a pair of hot-headed imbeciles imho - both blocked here.

[Java Jive]

On 04/12/2021 19:01, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5995a6c...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
>> video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
>> may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
>

> Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion
> different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...

Oh FFS hyposhite, grow up and stop describing anyone who disagrees with
you in terms from a children's pantomime of evil. I suspect probably a
majority here agree with Jim's opinions about NO, he's not a bad
presenter of history programmes, but he's a time-wasting overly verbose
bore when it comes to expressing his eccentric and somewhat paranoid
personal opinions.

[Rest of the foolish idiocy snipped for brevity]

[Java Jive]

On 04/12/2021 19:45, Alexander wrote:
>>
>> Have you been radicalised or something?
>
> Him and JJ are a pair of hot-headed imbeciles imho - both blocked here.

Which is one of the reasons why you both remain ignorant of the real
world beyond your respective paranoias - your funeral, no-one else's.

[Java Jive]

On 04/12/2021 19:09, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sofu1g$4cs$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>>
>> On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
>> allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited
>> in what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM
>> restrictions, and the financial and/or political interests of the
>> host broadcaster (and possibly worse).
>

> Have to say that does appear to be the case. Only one opinion allowed
> on so many topics. Anyone who doesn't follow the agenda/narrative is
> insulted, attacked personally, bullied and cancelled.
>
> Nice people the mob.

*HYPOSHITE!* On the very common occasions when anyone here criticises
either of your paranoid outpourings, they are immediately criticised
with a range of spiteful little childish slanders. The answer is
simple, stop posting dishonest crap here, then no-one would have to
waste their time pulling it to bits, and you wouldn't then have make the
inevitable childish reply. Either that or at least learn how to debate
like an adult.

[williamwright]

On 04/12/2021 19:01, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <5995a6c...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
>> video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
>> may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
>

> Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion
> different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...
>

> It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
> paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of
> tea.
>

> Have you been radicalised or something?
>
>

> Bob.
>

Jim, I have noticed you getting less measured and more ranty of late.
Building exasperation, or old age setting in? I have to say that my own
levels of tolerance have been eroded of late!

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <5995ae...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham

<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5995a6c...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty video
> > I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he may say.
> > Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...

> Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion
> different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...

... it was crap-on-stilts.

> It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
> paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of tea.

Reference?

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <sogh9u$jlt$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> On 04/12/2021 19:01, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <5995a6c...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty video
> >> I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he may say.
> >> Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...
> >
> > Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion
> > different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...

> Oh FFS hyposhite, grow up and stop describing anyone who disagrees with
> you in terms from a children's pantomime of evil. I suspect probably a
> majority here agree with Jim's opinions about NO, he's not a bad
> presenter of history programmes, but he's a time-wasting overly verbose
> bore when it comes to expressing his eccentric and somewhat paranoid
> personal opinions.

I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was quite
enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read here or on a
forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone
else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
important TV programme to make.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <j12fgn...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright

<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:

> Jim, I have noticed you getting less measured and more ranty of late.
> Building exasperation, or old age setting in? I have to say that my own
> levels of tolerance have been eroded of late!

Not really. I just allow myself the occasional rant when I encounter
particularly vacuous time-wasting off-topic dribble. :-) In general I
prefer to be more measured in the hope that it may help others. However it
is a PITA to waste time on dribble like the NO video, particularly when
Bob goes on on posting his sour cherries and fantasies, refusing to deal
with reliable scientific evidence - or even read it.

FWIW the video chimes with what I've seen others report about NO elsewhere.
But until this episode I'd not myself bothered to waste any time checking
him out on things other than his old 'history' items. I assume on that he's
reliable.... or at least I *did* assume that. If I want to know something
science based I'd look to a source with a decent track record in the topic
as a starting point for the evidence, then study that evidence and how it
was obtained, etc. But I'd assume they might be clueless about the ancient
kings of Scotland.

Quite why Bob assumes a digital-tv group is the place for him to 'campaign'
endlessly on his pet issues of CC and now covid, I dunno.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <5995af...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham

<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sofu1g$4cs$1...@dont-email.me>, Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr>
> wrote:

> > On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
> > allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
> > what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM
> > restrictions, and the financial and/or political interests of the host
> > broadcaster (and possibly worse).

> Have to say that does appear to be the case. Only one opinion allowed on
> so many topics. Anyone who doesn't follow the agenda/narrative is
> insulted, attacked personally, bullied and cancelled.

> Nice people the mob.

The basic error in your argument is that this issue isn't simply one of "My
*opinion* is as good as / better than yours."

The issue is what the scientific evidence and method show. Not the sour
cherries you and others post and assert. And the 'mob' you are really
arguing with are the real scientists and their evidence.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 09:58:05 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>I think I read here or on a
>forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone
>else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
>important TV programme to make.

If that's true, I suddenly don't like him either.

Rod.

[MB]

On 05/12/2021 09:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was quite
> enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read here or on a
> forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone
> else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
> important TV programme to make.

Everytime I see these clips of him on Twitter, it reminds me of a
hostage video.

[Java Jive]

LOL! Yes! I hadn't thought of it, but now you mention it ...

[Java Jive]

On 05/12/2021 12:50, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> The basic error in your argument is your persistent denial of many
> fully qualified scientist who disagree with your narrative drilled
> into you by the agenda driven media.

Here we go again, the same old bullshit that has already been debunked
multiple times here! Whenever these claims, usually in the hundreds or
thousands, of so-called 'fully qualified scientists' are examined
rationally, there are usually just a handful of them, of which, wrt:

Global Warming denial:
- Most are geologists employed by the fossil fuel industry;
- The expertise of the remaining scientists lies elsewhere;
- The rest aren't even scientists at all.

Covid-19 denial:
- Their predictions, such as 'herd immunity', were wrong every time;
- They ignore any science they don't like and try to lie it away.

[williamwright]

On 05/12/2021 09:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> I was watching NO in an old 'Coast' programme last night. That was quite
> enjoyable. Although it brought to mind a story I think I read here or on a
> forum claiming that NO turned up at a CalMac sailing and insisting someone
> else be removed to make room for him and his 'crew' because he had an
> important TV programme to make.

Hearsay really, nothing more. I'm surprised that a man like you Jim, so
much an adherent of evidence-based science, would repeat it.

Bill

[williamwright]

Rod, someone once told me that his mate at work knew a chap who's wife
worked with another woman who said she'd seen you dance naked on top of
a London bus.

Bill

[Jeff Layman]

On 05/12/2021 16:14, Java Jive wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 12:50, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> The basic error in your argument is your persistent denial of many
>> fully qualified scientist who disagree with your narrative drilled
>> into you by the agenda driven media.
>
> Here we go again, the same old bullshit that has already been debunked
> multiple times here! Whenever these claims, usually in the hundreds or
> thousands, of so-called 'fully qualified scientists' are examined
> rationally, there are usually just a handful of them, of which, wrt:
>
> Global Warming denial:
> - Most are geologists employed by the fossil fuel industry;
> - The expertise of the remaining scientists lies elsewhere;
> - The rest aren't even scientists at all.
>
> Covid-19 denial:
> - Their predictions, such as 'herd immunity', were wrong every time;
> - They ignore any science they don't like and try to lie it away.

I wouldn't normally bother to reply about anything he wrote, but
coincidentally I received an email from an old Japanese friend who lives
about 25km from the centre of Tokyo. I hadn't been paying any attention
to Covid levels in Japan, but this is what he said:

"...the number of COVID-19 cases are very low, less than 200 cases per
day. In Tokyo (population; about 14M), the number of COVID-19 cases are
less than 30 cases per day for about 30 days. At present, two cases of
the omicron variant COVID-19 are reported.
The third vaccination started for medical workers. We will probably have
the third vaccination around February."

So in the UK we have 45 - 50000 new cases a day, but Japan, with almost
double the population, has only 200 new cases a day! The number of those
who have had two vaccinations are about 78% in Japan, compared to about
80% in the UK. We are well ahead, though, with booster vaccinations. So
why the difference? Well, for our resident sage (not...), here is a
quote from <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59342308>:

"I've heard from colleagues in London that on the streets these days,
almost no-one is wearing a mask. Even in confined spaces, like the
underground, it's becoming a rarity.

Not in Japan. Here, everyone wears a mask - at the park, even on the
beach. Even lone car drivers can be seen wearing them as they speed past.

And then, there's the hand sanitiser. It's everywhere: at convenience
stores, public toilets, train stations, restaurants and cafes;
everywhere you go, you are expected to sanitise your hands before
touching anyone or anything.

It can feel a little oppressive and at times illogical. But there is
little doubt that it works.

"People behaved really well, with mask-wearing and social distancing,"
Prof Shibuya says. "But that is gone now."

The success of the vaccine rollout and the lifting of the state of
emergency means people are returning to offices, and going out to pubs
and restaurants again.

The sense of fear that kept people distanced for a year and a half is
fading. And because of that, he thinks the very low infection rate Japan
has now will not last.

"We are one to two months behind Europe" he says. "Very soon, we will
see another wave developing.""

Still think masks are pointless, Bob?

--

Jeff

[Roderick Stewart]

I think you might be confusing me with someone else. I haven't been to
London for ages.

Rod.

[Java Jive]

On 01/12/2021 01:43, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 21:04 30 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
>>
>> See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
>> watch, and the other links are also worth reading:
>>
>> Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
>> Scattering: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
>>
>> Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
>> https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
>>
>> 8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
>> https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-
>> need-to-stop-believing/
>>
>> BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40
>>
>> More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby
>> boom https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.
>
> Earlier today someone in uk.d-i-y posted these two useful links:
>
> <https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html>
>
> <https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pandemic-update-evidence>

Thanks, for the links, I've only just remembered to come back and read them.

This quote from the first is interesting in an ironic sort of way ...

"An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects,
increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns
and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross
domestic product.47"

... yet the very people who are anti-lockdown are also those who are
anti-mask! It's probably also worth quoting the conclusion from this
assessment of what the science says about mask use:

"Conclusions

Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to
reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is
derived from the combination of source control and wearer protection for
the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and wearer
protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that
individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further
research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect
of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of
materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness,
as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Mask use has
been found to be safe and is not associated with clinically significant
impacts on respiration or gas exchange. Adopting universal masking
policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with
other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand
hygiene, and adequate ventilation."


> Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I suspect
> conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks because
> wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official advice,
> which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do. The points
> they make on their social media forums make little sense but that
> doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's misconceptions. These
> disaffected misfits genuinely have psychological issues.

Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.

[Java Jive]

On 05/12/2021 18:17, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <soirgu$1k9$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>

> Yes.

Fool.

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> So in the UK we have 45 - 50000 new cases a day, but Japan, with almost double
> the population, has only 200 new cases a day!

The UK does 24x the number of tests per person as Japan, thy appear to be in a
covid lull at the moment.

[Pamela]

The whole business about masks is really a non-issue. Of course masks
are useful: it's hardly worth debating.

Covidiots' challenges against mask wearing are in vain. I have to
laugh when I see master-fool senator Rand Paul try to score points
against Dr Fauci about masks.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <j1474s...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright

I mentioned it, including making clear it was "claimed" to make the point
that - as with the contents of NO's rambling - we should wonder about mere
assertions and look for a relevent way to test it.

e.g. look at the science and evidence for what NO was claiming, not just
accept such a rant if we 'want' to believe it. And as far as I can see, the
science indicates he is talking spheroids.

I also wonder/wondered if the CalMac report was true. But having seen his
rant it did come to mind as being at least possible given his behaviour in
the Glum Bugger Nonsense video. And thought it might make a point here, as
outlined above.

Slainte,

[Pamela]

On 10:13 7 Dec 2021, Martin said:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:44:03 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>

>>>> Of course the science about masks favours wearing them. I
>>>> suspect conspiracy theorists and Covidiots are fearful of masks
>>>> because wearing one demonstrates they have complied with official
>>>> advice, which is something many Covidiots have vowed not to do.
>>>> The points they make on their social media forums make little
>>>> sense but that doesn't prevent them reinforcing one another's
>>>> misconceptions. These disaffected misfits genuinely have
>>>> psychological issues.
>>>
>>> Yes, and their irresponsible bullshitting make the world a more
>>> dangerous place for everyone, including themselves.
>>
>>The whole business about masks is really a non-issue. Of course
>>masks are useful: it's hardly worth debating.
>>
>>Covidiots' challenges against mask wearing are in vain. I have to
>>laugh when I see master-fool senator Rand Paul try to score points
>>against Dr Fauci about masks.
>

> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear
> contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the
> seal around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid
> masks should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.

I use FFP2 respirators but mine all cause some steaming up of specs.
Someone in another group uses a swimmers nose clip which I might try.

[Jeff Layman]

On 07/12/2021 10:13, Martin wrote:

> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear contact
> lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal around the nose
> isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks should be compliant with
> FFP3 or EU 95 standards.

What is EU 95? I've heard of N95, which is basically equivalent to FFP2,
but not EU 95 (or EU95). FFP3 is N99.

I'm surprised that you have a problem with contact lenses. I though that
the issue with glasses misting up was because they were always colder
than the air expelled from the top of a mask, so leading to water vapour
in breath condensing on them. Aren't contact lenses at, more-or-less,
body temperature?

--

Jeff

[Phil_M]

On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <soirgu$1k9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>

> Definitely.
>
> Your tale of Japan is interesting but it is what I call a negative
> proof and they are not good. Because something hasn't happened you
> can't just pick something that suites your opinion/narrative that
> coincides and claim that is the cause.
>
> However, take a look at this graph..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/infect2.png
>
> Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
> Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
> waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
>
> Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
> worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.
>
> Bob.
>
While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling to
below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since masks
were not required.
Phil M

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <kvcuqglebdrnvarsi...@4ax.com>, Martin

<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >I mentioned it, including making clear it was "claimed" to make the
> >point that - as with the contents of NO's rambling - we should wonder
> >about mere assertions and look for a relevent way to test it.

> NO is an archeologist. This type of thing is part of the job. Archeology
> is in many respects more of an art than a science.

Yes. That said: 'Archeology' *can* mean almost anything from looking at old
coins to things like ground-penetrating radar or green lidar surveys. But
what little recollections I have of NO on history/archeology type
programmes he seems to be at the coins-and-old-documents end of the topic.
That can give someone a lot of scope for, erm, 'interpretation'.

One reason, perhaps, why various history books routinely paint quite
different pictures of the same time-and-place, etc.

As the old USSR joke used to say: "The Future is certain. The Past is
variable!"

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <fgcuqgdeojnqktilf...@4ax.com>, Martin

<m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> Masks would offer more protection if the quality was better. I wear
> contact lenses. If I wear a mask the lenses mist up, because the seal
> around the nose isn't adequate. Maybe all things sold as covid masks
> should be compliant with FFP3 or EU 95 standards.

Yes, it would be good if more of the masks on sale were better. However it
remains the case AFAIK than wearing a mask does tend to reduce the
infection 'load' transferred. So even the basic masks help reduce infection
rates and severity. Hence better than not wearing any mask.

I found the the common masks have a 'bendy' strip on the 'top edge'. This
can be bent into a 'V' that fits around my nose. Helps keep the mask up
over the nose and reduces the gap at the top. As a result I don't get
breath noticably coming up over my eyes, or fogging my glasses.

Sadly, from what I see on TV many who do wear a mask don't fit it
optimally. So have their nose above the mask and do not use the above
tweak-to-fit.

[MB]

On 07/12/2021 10:55, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I found the the common masks have a 'bendy' strip on the 'top edge'. This
> can be bent into a 'V' that fits around my nose. Helps keep the mask up
> over the nose and reduces the gap at the top. As a result I don't get
> breath noticably coming up over my eyes, or fogging my glasses.

First thing I do when putting on a mask, is to take off my glasses and
put them in my pocket. Fortunately since cataract surgery, I am no
longer blind as the proverbial without glasses and can get around
without them. Just need to change to put on reading glasses if there
is something to read.

[Java Jive]

On 07/12/2021 12:29, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sonh33$k6l$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Phil_M <not...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/12/2021 11:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <soirgu$1k9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>

>>> However, take a look at this graph..
>>>
>>> h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / i n f e c t 2 . p n g

Yet another graph stolen pointlessly and unnecessarily from someone
else's website, so breaching their copyright. As 'Our World In Data' is
a genuine site, why not just provide a link to it? Perhaps you are so
used to trolling us with fake news that you can't get out of the
dishonest habits involved in trying to cover up its dodgy provenance.

>>> Remind me again how many months have N95 masks been mandatory in
>>> Germany? This does prove that mask mandates don't prevent covid
>>> waves. Don't bother to claim none compliance was the problem.
>>>
>>> Now you could get desperate and claim that it would have been a lot
>>> worse without masks, hope you don't do that either.

SIGH! As long as you keep timewasting and trolling, others have to keep
debunking you. Here yet again is the debunking of your mask denialism:

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED YET AGAIN!

The real world is not a lab experiment where you can vary one factor of
interest while keeping constant all the other factors that might skew
the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn from the results
of varying the one factor the are valid. You may be surprised to
discover that there have been no experiments done on whether washing
your hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, because it
wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet most of us accept
that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, and do
it without complaint. Likewise, there has been no such experiment on
whether or how much the wearing of face masks in an infectious
environment reduces infection rates because it would be equally
unethical to do as asking people not to wash their hands, nevertheless,
just as you should wash your hands after going to the toilet, so you
should also wear face-masks when the situation demands it, like being on
public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public space.

See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:

Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/

BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40

More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby boom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pandemic-update-evidence

>> While masks were still mandatory, the rate round here was falling
>> to below 200 per 100k. Last weekend it was over 1,100, all since
>> masks were not required. Phil M
>

> Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.

It's a simple fact, the totality of public measure previously taken,
including both lockdowns and masks, were effective at helping to control
the virus. What is directly counter-productive to controlling the virus
is irresponsible arseholes like you propagandising that they don't and
thereby encouraging equally irresponsible behaviour by others.

> Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and peak
> in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
> surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
> that normal.

Yes, that's perfectly true, but if lockdowns and masks don't work, why
did we have virtually now flu last winter? Of course, as everyone else
except a few right wing bigots know, the reason is that measures, such
as masks and lockdowns, that were taken against covid-19 were even more
effective at controlling flu.

> The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either.
> h t t p : / / w w w . m i g h t y o a k . o r g . u k / c v 1 9 / I C U 2 . j p g

Yet another graph stolen pointlessly and unnecessarily from someone
else's website, 'Our World In Data' again, but probably from the Shitter
account of Dr Clare Craig, who has previously been debunked here for
having five factual mistakes at the same time on the first page of her
Shitter feed, who retweeted this from one M a r t i n F a r n e l l,
who, like so many on Shitter, seems to be rather to full of his own
self-importance:

h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / t i m p e r s 7 / s t a t u s /
1 4 6 7 8 3 6 6 0 8 3 9 3 4 0 0 3 2 1

> Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?

Note the first response from someone called Andrew Neil:

"France has had vaccine passports for sometime now. It has 600,000+
Covid cases. UK has 1m+. Which part of vaccine passports don’t you get.
They also encourage younger folks to be vaxxed, where UK is lagging.
And, as you say, vax works."

He might have mentioned also that France and the UK are very close to
each other in size of population, too close for any difference to
explain the above differences in case rate. Clearly France are doing
something better than us, and vaccine passports may be part of that.

> I suppose only some facts are facts and other facts are cherries if
> the don't suite the narrative.
>
> I realise that observations and indeed science need to be bent to
> justify the socialist wet dream of more control over people's lives
> and even lockdowns.
Which is exactly what you do all the time.

[Pamela]

On 12:29 7 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <sonh33$k6l$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Phil_M <not...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:

> Wishful thinking attribution I'm afraid.
>

> Respiratory viruses start to increase infections each autumn and
> peak in January and then fall away in the spring. It would be very
> surprising if as covid becomes more endemic it didn't tend towards
> that normal.
>

> The facts also tell us that vaccine passports don't work either.
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/ICU2.jpg

> Guess which country doesn't have vaccine passports?

What a good example of false correlation. You may as well ask "Guess
which country isn't in the EU?"

Why don't you view death rates rather than ICU beds? For that the UK
comes out middling.

And why have you left out major countries like Italy and Spain (both with
much lower death rates and ICU occupancy than the UK)?

[Java Jive]

On 08/12/2021 08:51, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Oh dear.
>
> h t t p s : / / s w p r s . o r g / f a c e - m a s k s - e v i d e n c e /

Oh dear indeed!

FAKE NEWS REPEATED:

S w i s s P o l i c y R e s e a r c h
s w p r s . o r g

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/

"CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

[explanation of the rating]

Overall, we rate Swiss Policy Research (SPR) a Moderate Conspiracy
website based on the promotion of unproven claims. We also rate them
Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources and complete
lack of transparency."

In other words, they're just another right-wing pressure group telling
lies - the last time they featured in this ng, it was as the source of
a totally faked graph.

[Pamela]

On 08:51 8 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <soirgu$1k9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>

>> Still think masks are pointless, Bob?
>

> Oh dear.
>
> https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
>
> Bob.

Bob, that page is a series of claims which don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you visit the sources given, they clearly do not back up what your
page claims they say.

Presumably the page is a pseudo-official summary designed to fool
those too idle or too thick to spot the deception.

The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?

[Java Jive]

On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
>
> The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
> gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?

Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in
Shitter!

[Pamela]

On 12:15 8 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 08/12/2021 11:01, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> The page also says: "Share on: Twitter / Facebook". Those hotbeds of
>> gullibility will lap this page up. Is that where you found it?
>
> Of course it is, he seems to spend his entire waking life wallowing in
> Shitter!

The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it
cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.

It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.

[Alexander]

Here is an interesting publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxkb2yhdLiA


In a nutshell:
The "vaccines" do not reduce all-cause mortality.
There are peaks of increased all-cause mortality - these peaks are
synchronised with "vaccine" rollouts.
There is systematic miscategorisation of the "vaccination" status of
the deceased. People are not classed as being "vaccinated" until 14
days after their 2nd jab, so if they die after the jab(s) but before
that time has elapsed, they go down as an "unvaccinated" death.
(That's handy for big pharma, isn't it.)


Here also is an update from the funeral director whistleblower,
referenced in one of my earlier posts to this NG:
https://rumble.com/vqcw53-update-from-john-olooney.html

He reports an abnormally high number of young healthy people dying
from thrombotic events. Heart attacks, stroke, etc. He's seen more
this year than he has in the previous 14.


And some powerful words from Dr Yeadon; a leading voice in the
'resistance':
https://fnqldcc.com/home/dr-michael-yeadon-no-one-has-primacy-over-your-right-to-bodily-autonomy/

[Java Jive]

On 08/12/2021 12:44, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADFA7F9...@144.76.35.252>,

> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The disjoint between what that page gives as a summary and the source it
>> cites is quite something to behold. Take a look.
>>
>> It leads uncritical readers to draw completely false conclusions.

Which is exactly what I would expect from a site like that, it's very
much their modus operandi to completely distort reality to favour an
otherwise insupportable right-wing point-of-view.

> Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
> brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
> propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
> masks, they will not save you or anyone else.
>
> Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
> population, for others they are a comfort blanket.

Right-wing sites, such as the Swiss cess-pit to which you linked, spread
right-wing FUD in order to control the population, and look just how
extraordinarily successful they've been with you.

[Pamela]

On 12:44 8 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsADFA7F9...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
> brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
> propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust
> masks, they will not save you or anyone else.

Bob you're displaying the hallmarks of a conspiracy theorist such as:

- you have access to special knowledge,
- the people are being controlled,
- the authorities are trying to manipulate the truth,
- you must protect yourself from a hostile world,
- you must rise and challenge potential oppressors,
- etc.

It must be an exhausting life to feel threatened all the time.

> Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
> population, for others they are a comfort blanket.
>

> Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <59979b...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham

<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Oh I'm sure you think the site is rubbish that's the nature of how
> brainwashed people react. Of course you'll keep swallowing BBC
> propaganda fear porn like good girls and boys. Just don't trust masks,
> they will not save you or anyone else.

> Masks primary function is to spread fear in order to control the
> population, for others they are a comfort blanket.

Bob, you keep on making plain that you're simply unable to judge or
understand the actual science. Instead you just pick cherries that are
easily shown to be flawed or faked, but which you 'like' because they
support your pre-fixed beliefs. You then start throwing out what look
pretty much like increasingly extreme paranoid delusions. Not science or
evidence. That doesn't help you, or the case you keep asserting.

Your problem is that exampled by the way you attack the content of the
'BBC' *whilst also refusing to watch it*. Ditto for the book I've
suggested. That just shows your mind is closed, and you aren't willing to
risk reconsidering if it might make you find you've been mistaken. You are
telling us what you rigid belief is about them, NOT their actual content
that you refuse to examine. That's behaviour typical for a rigid religious
belief.

Again, that's not how science works. Scientists continually recheck and
find alternative ways to assess what is currently accepted. They also know
how to spot the flaws in sour cherries as well because they understand and
use the method that can test them. People here patiently read the nonsense
you link. You refuse to return that behaviour and reject the BBC, the book,
etc *on the basis of not knowing what they actually say*.

Your behaviour simply undermines others taking you seriously. Particularly
when your linked items are generally so flimsy or faked.

[Java Jive]

On 08/12/2021 13:12, Alexander trolled:

[
Covid-19 and vaccine disinformation that has been reported to
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
]

[Alexander]

"Alexander" <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote in message news:soqb08$cgi$1...@dont-email.me...

> There is systematic miscategorisation of the "vaccination" status of
> the deceased. People are not classed as being "vaccinated" until 14
> days after their 2nd jab, so if they die after the jab(s) but before
> that time has elapsed, they go down as an "unvaccinated" death.
> (That's handy for big pharma, isn't it.)

Just to update and clarify this:

You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
ago.

If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as "vaccinated"
until 14 days after the booster jab has been administered.

So in reality, contrary to misleading statistics. less than 1 in 10
people currently in hospital "with covid" are completely unjabbed.

Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in hospital,
using a test that gives enormous numbers of false positives, because
far too many amplification cycles are being used - the test is
basically bogus.

I would suggest that a significant proportion of these patients
are actually suffering from jab injuries, but thanks to this trickery
with the statistics, they will be portrayed in media as "paying the
price for not taking the jabs", and their suffering will be used to
scare the rest of public into taking more jabs.

Acute jab reactions (of which there have been many) will also not be
recorded in these misleading statistics.



Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I

"Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
COVID vaccine."
Again shocking and damning information, shared by a consultant
cardiologist - why wasn't this story on the front page of every
newspaper? (answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

On 08/12/2021 13:12, Alexander wrote:
>

> Here is an interesting publication:

> h t t p s : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i c a t i o n / 3 5 6 7 5 6 7 1 1 _ L a t e s t _ s t a t i s t i c s _ o n _ E n g l a n d _ m o r t a l i t y _ d a t a _ s u g g e s t _ s y s t e m a t i c _ m i s - c a t e g o r i s a t i o n _ o f _ v a c c i n e _ s t a t u s _ a n d _ u n c e r t a i n _ e f f e c t i v e n e s s _ o f _ C o v i d - 1 9 _ v a c c i n a t i o n

The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:

Martin Neil
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD

Not an epidemiologist.

Norman Elliott Fenton
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science
PhD Mathematics (Sheffield University)

Not an epidemiologist.

Scott Mclachlan
Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of Electronic
Engineering and Computer Science
PDRA in Computer and Information Science: Research Fellow in Law

Not an epidemiologist.

Joshua Guetzkow
Hebrew University of Jerusalem | HUJI · Department of Sociology and
Anthropology and Institute of Criminology
Doctor of Philosophy

Not an epidemiologist.

Joel Smalley's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is a blank page,
because he's best known as a lockdown denialist on Shitter ...

h t t p s : / / t w i t t e r . c o m / r e a l j o e l s m a l l e y

... whose profile when last looked up used loaded terminology like ...

"More important things to do than argue the toss with bedwetters"

... so clearly a very biased source, and this is born out by the fact
that he appears to be the same faker who as early as April 2020 was
trying to claim that Democratic-run states were having worse outcomes
than Republican-run states, but reading the article shows so many hidden
but bigoted assumptions that his so-called 'study' was clearly worthless
and irresponsible politicking about the catastrophe that was already
beginning to unfold in the US, and has only got many times worse since
then.

Dr Clare Craig's scientific contributions in ResearchGate is also a
blank page, because she's best known as a lockdown denialist who seems
to spend more time on Shitter than someone with a full-time job should
be able, and who is already famous in this ng as having had at one time
five provable errors in the first page of her Shitter feed.

So, of the authors we can identify, we have a bunch of non-experts in
epidemiology, all known to have a right-wing bias, and therefore should
be suspicious from the outset, but how much credence should be given
them can only be determined by looking at the paper itself. Here is its
abstract:

"The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately measured
by an all-cause mortality rate comparison of vaccinated against
unvaccinated, since it not only avoids most confounders relating to case
definition but also fulfils the WHO/CDC definition of “vaccine
effectiveness” for mortality. We examine the latest UK ONS vaccine
mortality surveillance report which provides the necessary information
to monitor this crucial comparison over time. At first glance the ONS
data suggest that, in each of the older age groups, all-cause mortality
is lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Despite this apparent
evidence to support vaccine effectiveness - at least for the older age
groups - on closer inspection of this data, this conclusion is cast into
doubt because of a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in
the data. Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear
that it is both unreliable and misleading. While socio-demographical
and behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated have
been proposed as possible explanations, there is no evidence to support
any of these. By Occam’s razor we believe the most likely explanations
are systemic miscategorisation of deaths between the different
categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated; delayed or non-reporting of
vaccinations; systemic underestimation of the proportion of
unvaccinated; and/or incorrect population selection for Covid deaths."

This starts off well enough, by which I mean free from value-judgement,
except perhaps the word 'arguably' in the first sentence, but then they
draw upon the WHO to justify that, so we'll buy it. The real trouble
begins with "Whatever the explanations for the observed data [...]" adn
goes right to the end, all of which is the authors' own value judgements
completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

> and an LBC radio interview with one of its authors (very rare to
> hear the uncomfortable truth on LBC or on any other MSM):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = J x k b 2 y h d L i A

02:05 Interviewer: "You're saying that the vaccines, the evidence is
indicating a spike in all-cause mortality after vaccination?"

Fenton: "Yeah, it occurs shortly after the initial big rollout of the
vaccination in each of the different age groups. It's crucial to
separate out the different age groups [...]"

But the graph being discussed on screen doesn't seem to be doing that,
certainly at least not accurately. Its caption reads "Adjusted
non-Covid mortality rate in unvaccinated and unvaccinated versus %
vaccinated for age group 60-69 (weeks 1-38, 2021)" which is quite a lot
to discuss in itself ...

For a start, what does "unvaccinated and unvaccinated versus %
vaccinated" actually mean? It would seem to imply that there should be
two curves on the graph, labelled accordingly, but there are four, none
of which have the second label! They are:
Adjusted unvaccinated no-covid mortality rate
Adjusted vaccinated no-covid mortality rate
1 dose
2 dose

Secondly, they seem unaware that the the age group 60-69 were not done
as one group. The UK governments delivery plan is still displayed in
this government document from Spring 2021 ...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963491/COVID-19_Response_-_Spring_2021.pdf

... and the relevant section, p156, Table 2, & later para 41, reads ...

5 All those 65-69 years of age 2.9M

6 All those aged 16 years to 64 years
with underlying health conditions 7.3M

7 all those aged 60-64 years of age 1.8M

... so how come their figures have apparently combined these three
groups into one?

Thirdly, the spikes in the graphs of each dose don't coincide with
"shortly after the initial big rollout of the vaccination" for this age
group, as claimed in the video, as I well know because I happened to be
in it at the time. The spike in the '1 dose' curve is about week 6-7,
about half way through February, but I didn't have my first dose until
the second week in March, and I am not alone, because from the para in
the above document we have:

"The Government’s ambition to offer everyone in JCVI cohorts 1 to 4 at
least one dose of the vaccine by 15 February was met two days early."

So the 70+ age range had just been been completed at the peak of the
spike, and 65-70 year olds were just beginning to be done, so the
maximum of this spike for the 60-69 age range, and therefore probably
the rest of it, can have *NOTHING* to do with their just having been
vaccinated, indeed *NOTHING* to do with their vaccination status at all.

Similarly the spike in the '2 dose' curve is about week 18, first week
in May, which again is not "shortly after the initial big rollout of the
vaccination", this time the second dose, for this age group. I didn't
receive mine until a week later, add another week or two for me to get
complications from it and ultimately die from them, and again the peak
is much too early.

So their analysis is riddled with mistakes, as might be expected from
the fact that it was it was done by a group of people whose political
motivations are already well known to override their scientific
impartiality.

No need to watch further!

> In a nutshell:

It's crap, like everything else you post.

[Java Jive]

On 09/12/2021 16:05, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <sora4j$cop$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:

[A load of crap mostly debunked elsewhere]

> Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in
> statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
> surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
> shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
> lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
> knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
> decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
> it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
> are classified unvaxed.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> The Pfizer Booster trial submitted 17/9/21 indicated 34/268 people
> tested positive within 28 days of the booster. At the peak 1 in 25
> were infected but after covid booster that rises to 1 in 8. FOR A
> PERIOD, areas less well jabbed have lower covid levels.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> Reports I have read claim that our spring peaks of covid that Europe
> didn't have (before we opened up) were due to this phenomena and that
> our vaccine push was more rapid than Europe's.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

> I'm quite sure the large majority are jabbed but I couldn't put a
> figure on it and certainly the numbers dying of covid are
> overwhelmingly vaccinated so it's very difficult to see how people in
> hospital could be a significantly different ratio.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/vaxdeadstatus.jpg

Look up "Simpson's paradox". Vaccines are never 100% preventative, so
some vaccinated people will still get the disease, and some of those
will get it severely enough to die, and as the vast majority of the
people in the country have been vaccinated now, the probability is now
that anyone who dies of covid-19 will have had one or more doses of the
vaccine. But that's not what is important here. What is important is
what *PROPORTION* of people who have been vaccinated go on to develop
severe disease and die, as opposed to what *PROPORTION* of unvaccinated
people go on to develop severe disease and die.

Currently in the population as currently vaccinated there are between
40-50,000 thousand cases and less than 200 deaths a day, whereas back in
late December 2020 before the vaccinations had really begun when the
case rate was broadly comparable, the death rate was between 600-700 a
day, more than 3 times as high. That's all you need to know.

>> Also, "with covid" simply means they tested positive while in
>> hospital, using a test that gives enormous numbers of false
>> positives, because far too many amplification cycles are being
>> used - the test is basically bogus.
>

> Yes, I know of two FOI requests that revealed that the test cycles
> are absurdly high.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REPEATED!

1) PCR False Positive Rate measured to be around 0.001%

As Bob so helpfully linked the other day to something that completely
undermines his continuous fake news about the PCR test:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v4

"We in germany do re-testing of positives on a regular basis, and the
result is that false-positive diagnostic findings that are actually
filed to the patient are in the range of 0,001 %. Even if testing
activity of healthy subject was high up to September, the number of
people that had a wrong test result is something like a handful a week
and totally acceptable in the face of the alternative. Especially since
one does a second test some days later."

2) PCR False Positive Rate measured to be around 0.02%

https://nhsproviders.org/topics/covid-19/coronavirus-member-support/national-guidance/government-updates/daily-updates

"Tuesday 21 July

Health and Social Care Committee oral evidence: Management of the
Coronavirus outbreak

[...]

[Sir] Paul Nurse [...].

He didn’t think that false positive tests are much of a problem – their
research shows that they have 1 false positive for every 5000."
[= 0.02%]

3) PCR False Positive Rate cannot be greater than around 0.045%

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-false-positives-testing-covid-19-test-b550133.html

"Speaking to the BBC, Professor David Spiegelhalter from the University
of Cambridge said that the figure touted for a false positive rate of
0.8 per cent “seems far too high” when looking at other ONS surveys.

“The ONS survey [from June] did 112,000 tests and only got 50 positive
tests out of it," [=0.045%] he said, noting that even if all of these
were false positives, the rate would be under 0.05 per cent.

He described the false positive issue as “a complete red herring” that
was distracting from the actual issue of a rapidly spreading virus."

>> Here is another rare glimpse of the horrific truth on mainstream
>> media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8t0qQ5R4I
>>
>> "Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA
>> COVID vaccine." Again shocking and damning information, shared by
>> a consultant cardiologist -

TROLL! PROVEN LIE ALREADY DEBUNKED REPEATED AGAIN!

People die in a variety of ways and/or of various conditions all the
time, it's an ongoing fact of life. Some of these people will have been
recently vaxed but died in car accidents, are you going to try and claim
that the vax caused their car accident? With people dying all the time
in multiple ways, and people being vaxxed all the time in an ongoing
roll-out, it is inevitable that some people will die shortly after
receiving a vaccine, but it's just co-incidence.

> Undoubtedly there are bad jab reactions and reports of sports people
> collapsing are now common.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?

>> why wasn't this story on the front page of every newspaper?
>> (answer: because we don't have a functioning free press)

The real answer is that it's a crazed conspiracy theory, like all the
other crap you post.

> True, in the main the media are an agenda following bunch of lockdown
> loons, keen for more.
>
> Prime minister, why didn't you lockdown sooner, harder, longer?
> When are we going to lockdown?
>
> But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit
> analysis of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse
> and murder, spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools
> closed and business wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone
> burying her husband like so many others while no.10 party?

More of Bob's absurd and childish paranoia left in for normal sane
people to have a good laugh at.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <sou3h2$m45$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> The most interesting thing about that is who the authors are:

> Martin Neil Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of
> Electronic Engineering and Computer Science BSc PhD

> Not an epidemiologist.

> Norman Elliott Fenton Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School
> of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science PhD Mathematics
> (Sheffield University)

> Not an epidemiologist.

> Scott Mclachlan Queen Mary, University of London | QMUL · School of
> Electronic Engineering and Computer Science PDRA in Computer and
> Information Science: Research Fellow in Law

> Not an epidemiologist.

Interesting to see such a collection from my old 'firm'. :-) I wonder if
they're all Millwall fans. 8-] I recall KevDon was - so good for a wind-up
from a Hammers fan when in the SCR. His taste in Football teams didn't
stop him becoming a Prof, though.

The fact that none of the authors are Epidemiologists doesn't automatically
mean their results must be wrong. Even a stopped clock is right on occasion.
However...

It is one thing to be able to write computer programmes and have them
crunch data. It is something else to determine the meaning of the data and
the presented 'results'. Data and Information are not synonyms.

And as we have found, being an 'expert' in one field - e.g. archeology -
doesn't ensure you really understand some other field. Thus, to be alert
for such mistakes you need to survey the field *as a whole* and understand
what it shows. Not just cherry pick and publish.

Bob should realise this given all the time he devotes to trying to rubbish
the results of people processing CC data. However he seems a tad, erm,
'selective' when it comes to his 'likes' or 'hates'. Seems to prefer
judging on that basis over studying and *understanding* the overall bulk of
what has been done. e.g. as outlined in great depth and variety with many
references in a book I've occasionally recommended... which he seems very
anxious NOT to read.

Oh well, no accounting for taste. Some people *like* sour cherries, I guess.

Is Bob a Millwall supporter?... Their old chant was IIRC "Everybody hates us,
and we don't care!"

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <599831...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham

<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> But never, Prime minister have you done an honest cost benefit analysis
> of lockdown considering cancer, heart attacks, child abuse and murder,
> spouse abuse, strokes, operations cancelled, schools closed and business
> wrecked not forgetting our poor queen all alone burying her husband like
> so many others while no.10 party?

Oddly selective question given that it has for many years been quite clear
that BloJo has no real intersection with reality or concern for honesty.
Should have been obvious from the days of misleading claims painted on buses!

[Alexander]

"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:599831...@sick-of-spam.invalid...

> In article <sora4j$cop$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Alexander <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote:
>

>> Just to update and clarify this:
>
>> You are not classed as "vaccinated" (for purpose of hospitalisation
>> and death statistics) until 14 days after a 2nd jab has been
>> administered, and then only if that 2nd jab was less than 6 months
>> ago.
>
>> If you have taken a booster jab, you are not classed as
>> "vaccinated" until 14 days after the booster jab has been
>> administered.
>

> Yes indeed that does appear to be the case. It is also being shown in
> statistics that during the 28 days following a booster vax a
> surprising number of people test covid positive and get things like
> shingles. Looks like the immune system takes a step back.

Of course "test covid positive" means nothing, because the "tests"
are a joke.

> It's not known how this happens but it's possible that viruses are
> lying dormant in the body (inc covid) until the immune system gets
> knobbled. Covid infections increase after vaccination before they
> decrease. That is why they don't count until 14 days and rumour has
> it, this will be increased to 28 days. If you die in that period you
> are classified unvaxed.

A recent paper published by Prof. Bhakdi and Prof. Burkhardt
may shed some light on this:
https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/end-covax.pdf

In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
the body's immune system to attack itself.

Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

He is most concerned that this damage to the immune system is
going to cause massive recurrence of dormant diseases that
people carry in their bodies, such as TB.


The immune system is also crucial in fighting tumour cells, and
a 20-fold increase in certain types of cancer (for example
endrometrial cancer) has already been recorded since the
"vaccination" rollout.

[Alexander]

"Alexander" <no...@nowhere.fr> wrote in message news:sqqrh4$3av$1...@dont-email.me...

> A recent paper published by Prof. Bhakdi and Prof. Burkhardt
> may shed some light on this:
> https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/end-covax.pdf

> In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
> system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
> causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
> manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
> role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
> attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
> the body's immune system to attack itself.

> Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video:
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

Correction: the above is not explicitly covered in the linked
paper (which deals with other jab-related problems) but is
described in the video, from 9m6s.
Specifically the sentinel lymphocytes in the lymph nodes
are thought to be affected.

[Norman Wells]

On 02/01/2022 00:27, Alexander wrote:

> In a nutshell (as far as I can understand it): the immune
> system is disrupted, because the gene-based "vaccines" end up
> causing IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes to
> manufacture the Spike protein. These cells (which play a vital
> role in the functioning of the body's immune system) are then
> attacked by the immune system as a result, effectively causing
> the body's immune system to attack itself.
>
> Bhakdi explains it in his own words, in this video:
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHIT55iM4Zv9/

Bitchute may not, however, be the most reliable of sources:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bitchute-far-right-youtube-neo-nazi-terrorism-videos-a9632981.html

[Java Jive]

On 02/01/2022 00:27, Alexander wrote:

Covid-19 and vaccine quackery and disinformation that has been reported to:

a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g

> h t t p s : / / d o c t o r s 4 c o v i d e t h i c s . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / e n d - c o v a x . p d f

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics/

"D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Overall, we rate D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s a
quackery level pseudoscience organization based on promoting false and
misleading claims regarding Covid-19 and vaccines.

Bias Rating: PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW

Funded by / Ownership

The website lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership or funding.

Analysis / Bias

D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s is an advocacy group
that states its mission as “we are demanding the immediate withdrawal of
all experimental gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. We oppose vaccine
passports, which threaten public health and violate Nuremberg and other
protections. We are warning that ‘health passes’ place coercive pressure
on citizens to submit to dangerous medical experimentation, in return
for freedoms that once were human rights.”

The mission statement above begins with two falsehoods; first, the
vaccines are not experimental. Second, they do not violate the Nuremberg
code as vaccine passports do not force people to get vaccinated.

[...]

In general, they are a medical disinformation organization.

Failed Fact Checks

- Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health, because they can
increase the CO2 that you breathe. – False
- VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance data show that COVID-19
vaccines are killing people. – False

Overall, we rate Doctors for Covid Ethics a quackery level pseudoscience
organization based on promoting false and misleading claims regarding
Covid-19 and vaccines."

[Pamela]

On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>
> [...]

>
> Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,

I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight and
hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.

Talk about clutching at straws.

Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
paying attention.

[Sysadmin]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 14:18:56 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <XnsAE15842...@144.76.35.252>,

> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
> Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
> masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the globe
> there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.
>
> If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
> than us, they didn't.
>
> What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
> enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do
> something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
> actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
>
> A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other schools
> locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They did
> something.
>
> Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
> the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are effective,
> if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
>
> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
> yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.
>
> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
> referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.
>
> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
> a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
> stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
> getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
> know of another vaccine like that?
>
>
> Bob.

I purchased 50 high quality masks at 6 weeks into the start of the spread
of Corona Virus.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <59a58b...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham

<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <XnsAE15842...@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.

News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
country she is in.

[snip initial dribble about 'masks' promped by policial paranoia.]

> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this shit
> yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.

Godwin's Law! :-) However your postings do make it obvious that you are
having problems understanding what logical intelligent people think!
Nothing new there, though, alas.

> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid, ordinary
> folk see right through it and don't buy any of this nonsense. He was
> referring to a raft of current BS on a range of subjects.

I can't recall what epidemiological knowedge he has. Looks like to be on a
par with yours from the muddles in what you write next...

> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've had 3,
> we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news. Wow, so
> a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works and doesn't
> stop people being infected. The third shot we're told will not stop you
> getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be less ill. Anyone
> know of another vaccine like that?

That's quite a list of misunderstanding, idiotic oversimplications, and
sheer fantasy, even by your poor standards! (sic).

Just one e.g.: The "effectiveness" of a vaccination depends on what is
being referring to in terms of "effect". So you can expect a different
value depending on which of the following you mean:

1) Prevention of any detectable infection for a given viral 'load'
delivered. (Which may mean the person can't infect anyone else.)

2) Prevention of noticable *symptoms*. (But may mean the person
can infect someone else, so is a - potentially unawares - infection
risk for others, making it more useful for them to wear a mask to
protect others.)

3) Prevention of 'serious' symptoms.

4) Prevention of needing ICU or similar.

5) Prevention of death caused by the infection.

It also varies from person to person, and with time after the
vaccination(s). Plus, no doubt other factors.

Sweeping assertions about 'effectiveness' that don't specify these
details are themselves potential symptoms of someone who is wilfully
clueless about the science and simply grabs at straws to back their
wishful thinking, presenting them out of context, etc, etc.

i.e. cherry picking.

Yawn. Oh well, at least your comments suit the thread's title, and
look like the level of 'science' that NO might present on the basis
of his extensive understanding of epidemiology.

If you want to moan that I'm going for the man and not the ball, I
can point out in advance that in science terms you had no actual
ball - only a lot of boxx0x, in your posting. :-)

[Roderick Stewart]

Apparently there's just one person in Scotland in ICU with the latest
lurgy, and it's not even clear if the lurgy was the specific reason
they were admitted, or if they were admitted for something else and
were subsequently tested. Either way, it's just *one* person in
however many millions live in the whole of Scotland. How scared are we
still supposed to be, and why?

Rod.

[Chris Green]

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was no
> > point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
> country she is in.
>

Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
in.

--
Chris Green
·

[Java Jive]

On 04/01/2022 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE15842...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> On 17:03 2 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
>>>
>>> Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health,

I never said what is implied by the misattribution above, the full quote
was:

On 02/01/2022 17:03, Java Jive wrote:
>
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/doctors-for-covid-ethics/
>
> "D o c t o r s f o r C o v i d E t h i c s
> CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
>

> [...]
>
> In general, they are a medical disinformation organization.
>
> Failed Fact Checks
>
> - Wearing face masks can be harmful to your health, because they can
> increase the CO2 that you breathe. – False
> - VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance data show that COVID-19
> vaccines are killing people. – False
>
> Overall, we rate Doctors for Covid Ethics a quackery level pseudoscience
> organization based on promoting false and misleading claims regarding
> Covid-19 and vaccines."

>> I recall hearing an anti-mask caller to a radio station explain his
>> theory that masks made things worse because they blocked sunlight
>> and hence production of Covid-fighting vitamin D.
>
>> Talk about clutching at straws.
>
>> Maybe "Spike" or Bob Latham have already raised this when I wasn't
>> paying attention.
>

> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
> no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>

> Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
> Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the cloth
> masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across the
> globe there has never been any quality evidence they do anything.
>
> If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
> than us, they didn't.

Germany vs UK - FALSE!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105

Death Rates per 100,000 people:

UK 222.8
Germany 135.4

See also:

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data?country=GBR~DEU

England vs Wales - UNCLEAR!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/january2021

Populations
England 56.3m
Wales 3.2m

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=England
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=Wales

Within 28 days of +ve test Covid-19 on death certificate

Total Deaths
England 129,474 146,118
Wales 6,581 9,103

Death Rates / m
England 2,300 2,595
Wales 2,057 2,845

Total Hospital Admissions
England 548,169
Wales 37,496

Hospital Admissions / m
England 9,737
Wales 11,718

So no real pattern favouring either.

> What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their
> enforcement.

On the contrary, they provide a sense of security. Going into a public
space were everyone is seen to be wearing masks properly makes one feel
a lot safer than a public space where a significant number of people are
not wearing them and/or wearing them obviously improperly.

> The other reason is the government "being seen to do
> something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
> actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.

There is always an element of that in any government handling of any
difficult situation, and that will just as true of other governments as
well as our own, so makes little difference either way.

> Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you getting
> the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are
> effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.

As has already been explained to you at least twice before, vaccines are
clearly helping to control the pandemic both in the UK and in the rest
of the world, one only has to compare the numbers of people ending up in
hospital and/or dying against the number of cases at the time to get a
sense of that. Before the vaccinations, the current record breaking
infection rates in the UK would have been a certain death knell for many
of those being infected, but, despite the recent high case rates, the
hospitalisation and death rates are only just beginning to rise a little
- the situation needs close monitoring, because we know that commonly
both these rates are commonly some 2 - 3 weeks behind the infection
rates, and it's about that time since omicron struck us, but so far at
least things seems to be holding up, and that is certainly largely due
to the vaccines.

> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
> shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.

Yes, he persuaded ignorant shits like you to believe in lies.

> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
> ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
> nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
> subjects.

He's a BS-er himself, so no change there.

> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and
> there's not a lot we can do about it.

On the contrary, we already have accomplished quite a lot, and would
have fared better if dishonest shits like you didn't keep pushing
propaganda.

> Even vaccines of which I've had
> 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky news.
> Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer works
> and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're told
> will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe you'll be
> less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?

As has been demonstrated to you with statistics at least twice before,
the vaccines are clearly helping to keep people out of hospital and from
dying, the current low admission and death rates compared with the
higher rates before vaccines became available prove that conclusively.

[Java Jive]

On 04/01/2022 16:29, Chris Green wrote:

>
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> News to me that 'Pamela' is part of a Government! I don't even know what
>> country she is in.
>
> Jim, "your government" means the government of the country you live
> in.

In which case Bob should have said 'our government'.

[Java Jive]

On 04/01/2022 16:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> How scared are we
> still supposed to be, and why?

As far as omicron is concerned, it's a bit too early to say for sure -
it does seem to be less prone to give people severe disease than
previous variants, but that could be because in SA the population is
younger, while in the UK the older population is well vaccinated.
However, the most recent UK stats do suggest the beginnings of a rise in
hospital admissions and deaths, as might be expected 2 - 3 weeks after
such a substantial rise in cases, we'll just have sit tight and see how
much worse things get, meanwhile a certain amount of caution all round,
both at governmental and individual level, seems wise.

[Pamela]

On 14:18 4 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE15842...@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmmm for 3 months in 2020 your government was adamant that there was
> no point in wearing masks, they wouldn't do anything.
>
> Since then we've seen mask mandates all over the globe and some like
> Germany even specify hi grade masks far better quality than the
> cloth masks allowed here. But even though they have been used across
> the globe there has never been any quality evidence they do
> anything.
>
> If they did something then Germany, Wales would all have done better
> than us, they didn't.
>

> What they do do, is spread fear and that is one reason for their

> enforcement. The other reason is the government "being seen to do

> something" this is common in the public sector, it doesn't need to
> actually work, it just needs to look like we've taken action.
>

> A few years ago a local school had a machete attack. The other
> schools locally mandated lanyards with ID badges for all staff. They
> did something.
>

> Another example is vaccine passports. Vaccines don't stop you
> getting the virus or stop you spreading it but vaccine passports are
> effective, if you're really stupid and gullible at least.
>

> I can't believe logical intelligent people haven't worked out this
> shit yet, the damage dome to people's thinking by propaganda. Now I
> understand how Hitler came to be.
>

> As David Starkey said recently about the professional elite, highly
> educated and you need to be that well educated to be so stupid,
> ordinary folk see right through it and don't buy any of this
> nonsense. He was referring to a raft of current BS on a range of
> subjects.
>

> At some point the wise will see that the virus will do its thing and

> there's not a lot we can do about it. Even vaccines of which I've

> had 3, we're told the first two are ineffective according to sky
> news. Wow, so a vaccine we had two shots of 6 months ago no longer
> works and doesn't stop people being infected. The third shot we're
> told will not stop you getting covid but you must have it, maybe
> you'll be less ill. Anyone know of another vaccine like that?
>

> Bob.

Great troll. So many points. There's something for everyone to
correct.

If the replies start to flag then I'm sure you have a few silly points
in reserve.

[Pamela]

I suspect "your government" means the "government you elected".

As it happens, I didn't vote for Boris or any other Conservative.