Coronavirus

[Matt Armstrong's Dog]

1 hour ago, rocket_scientist said:

A friend and his son caught Covid at a stagger down south at the weekend, for a wedding supposed to happen at the weekend. Symptoms a plenty despite double jabbed.

The only other guy I know personally who definitely had it - daughter thinks she had it in December 2019 when it wasn't widely known in Europe - was hospitalised and almost died of it in January this year.

I no longer know what the rules are for isolating etc. and won't care about them until  or if it affects me. The figures they report on the news don't interest me either, suffering from Covid-fatigue as I am, tired of the panic, the fear-inducing and the illogicality of the whole pandemic management rather than the virus itself.

What is of great concern is that there has been no MSM reporting of the anti-vaxxers demos this last week, including them getting into the offices of a TV station (ITV, I think). I have no idea what the anti-vaccine position actually is and I'm not interested enough to look into it any more but it appears to me that nae cunt knows what's going on, including those who are running the show, those reporting on it and those protesting about it. Selective reporting though, that will never do. It's like the same old, same old, marginalising voices that don't fit a murky narrative and doesn't fit an agenda that we've not been told about.

Knowing only 2 (or 3) people who have had it doesn't appear to be a killer virus to me, especially when the death figures clearly included old people who were dying anyway, including of other viruses e.g. flu as they do every year. If any of you have any certainty that I don't, I'm wondering where you get it from? Some of the "studies" have been agenda-driven and can't be taken as gospel, given how much dissent and argument is going on in the scientific community. It would therefore be unlikely that posters on the hat would have all the answers.

 

15 minutes ago, Howard Marks said:

Aye it's been an interesting "pandemic" for sure. I know absolutely no one that has (knowingly) has it, yet I know many who have lost jobs, income and suffered mentally as a result of it. All this chat of "possible deadly variants" is designed to keep us living in fear. I don't think Sturgeon etc really know how this whole nonsense is affecting the person on the street. They do know how easy it is to control an entire population and will not be giving up these powers in a hurry.

We were told in no uncertain terms that the vaccine was "our way out of this." Yet the messaging seems to be gradually changing to "hmmm it might not actually be."

There is a large percentage of the population that appear to support reimposing restrictions and would support anything that comes out of the mouth of Sturgeon. That is concerning.

I've done my bit. Furlough for most of last year, been vaccinated. I'm over it. If I die, I die.

Contenders for posts of the year, and echo my thoughts exactly, lads.

Fully agree with everything you have said?.

This is not about trying to control the spread of a virus that has been given a fashionable brand name to give it an aura of some credence and, in turn, provoked hysteria and fear in our society. It never has been.

This is purely about two megalomaniacs, Alexander Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon, exerting their form of tyrannical power, control, and scrutiny over the entire population of our nation of which I'm afraid the electorate in the majority of our constituencies have granted them, and ultimately fulfilled their own self-obsession, selfishness, and respective agendas. 

 

[BrianFaePerth]

Loved how the boy adjusted his glasses before dishing out some lessons

[Fridge]

9 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Despite the SNP having almost all the MP's and constituency MSP's, aye? 

Why do folk keep repeating this dross? ?

Well you tell me why did she lock down Aberdeen?

[NEM]

22 minutes ago, Parklife said:

 

 

Because we've much greater interaction now than we did this time last year. You know that. 

They work very well. Hence why much fewer people are dying than they were previously. 

We don't have all that many restrictions just now. Mainly because the vaccines have broken the link between infections and hospital admissions/deaths. If the NHS is having to treat many thousands of people with Covid, it won't be able to run all the essential services it needs to. 

You don't want a vaccine. That's fine. No one is making you get it. I don't think many on here support things like vaccine passports either. I don't get your apparent willingness/hope for the vaccines not to work though. Given all the shit we've put up with, it seems bizarre to me that you want the thing that is putting an end to it all to fail. 

In the past few weeks yes.  Doesn't explain the months previous when we were still under restrictions.

Again - more people are dying than this time last year.  

Only the vaccine?  Nothing to do with natural immunity being higher in the summer and the virus weakening as it mutates?

Where have I said I want it to fail?  More selective reading from the Hats self proclaimed master of the English language.

[NEM]

11 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Despite the SNP having almost all the MP's and constituency MSP's, aye? 

Why do folk keep repeating this dross? ?

"most folk here don’t vote for her"

Dross?  The SNP were elected on a minority of the vote.  

If you want to continually play the smart arse on here at least learn to read first ?

[Parklife]

3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

1. You've concluded that cases are up because interaction is greater. Sounds logical to me, clean and simple too. I'm not sure that there's much in all of this that anyone can conclude for certain though.

Yeah. Of course I can't be certain. It's my opinion of why. NEM clearly disagrees. 

3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

2. Restrictions "work very well" you say, and present the evidence for your conclusion being that "fewer people are dying".

No. You've misread. NEM said the vaccines "don't work very well", i said they do "work very well"

3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

3. Then you say it is vaccines, not restrictions that explain the death rate being reduced?

No. I was always referring to the vaccine. You misread. 

3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

So you're saying it's BOTH restrictions AND vaccines that have done and are doing a great job? You're entitled to any opinion you want but I can't understand how you can be certain though.

I never commented on the effectiveness of restrictions. Only the vaccines. 

3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

On a personal note, the only remaining real pains in the arse for me is restrictions on international travel and the wearing of face masks. Given your greater knowledge on the pandemic than me - cos I can't be arsed reading extensively on it any more - what's your position on face masks?

I don't proclaim to have greater knowledge than you. Not sure where you're getting that from. 

My position? I don't know whatever the latest research is tbh. I know that I find it a minuscule effort to put one on in indoor public places, so I do it. How much it is helping, I don't know. 

[Parklife]

5 minutes ago, NEM said:

"most folk here don’t vote for her"

Dross?  The SNP were elected on a minority of the vote.  

If you want to continually play the smart arse on here at least learn to read first ?

Then his argument is even more illogical, as in the majority of places they got less than 50% of the vote. 

The "she's picking on Aberdeen" narrative is dumb as fuck. Aye, she thought she'd pick on a place where her party wins all the time. Makes sense... 

[NEM]

9 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Then his argument is even more illogical, as in the majority of places they got less than 50% of the vote. 

The "she's picking on Aberdeen" narrative is dumb as fuck. Aye, she thought she'd pick on a place where her party wins all the time. Makes sense... 

They don't.  The previous election they won one seat

[Parklife]

7 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Before restrictions are imposed, I prefer the science behind it to be more certain. Given that even you don't know how effective they are in reducing transmission, surely we shouldn't be forced to do anything without understanding why and without having full trust in the authorities telling us?

This opens up a whole different debate though, that of our default start positions. 

There should be solid reasoning behind restrictions being enforced, I agree. I don't know what the research shows on masks. It was pretty sketchy initially but given the newness of the virus, I can understand that. 

It seems logical to me that having a barrier that reduces the volume of respiratory moisture that I expel in to the air, will reduce the volume of virus in the air (if I have Covid). That may be a completely wrong piece of logic, I don't know. 

Of all the restrictions that were imposed during the pandemic, the one I got least bothered about was putting a mask on to go in to a shop. 

[Parklife]

13 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

Our default start positions are complete opposites.

If you say so. You don't understand what my start position is though and have in the past woefully mischaracterised it. 

I remember you posting something like "biggest climb down ever!" In response to one of my posts, which was essentially the same as I'd been saying since March 2020. 

13 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

I don't trust anyone or anything without me doing the work to learn that trust in them is valid and rightfully given (and even then we all make wrong judgements). 

Pretty much the same as me then. I read, I try and educate myself and I try and make informed decisions. 

13 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Wearing a mask and being happy to do it is a classic example of our polar opposite extremes.

If you say so. 

Ive got a busy afternoon of work to do now though, so will leave the discussion there for now. 

[manboobs109]

The strangest thing about all this is Sturgeon suddenly not giving a shit about the 10 to 15 people dying everyday through covid.

[dazzy_deff]

46 minutes ago, Parklife said:

There should be solid reasoning behind restrictions being enforced, I agree. I don't know what the research shows on masks. It was pretty sketchy initially but given the newness of the virus, I can understand that. 

It seems logical to me that having a barrier that reduces the volume of respiratory moisture that I expel in to the air, will reduce the volume of virus in the air (if I have Covid). That may be a completely wrong piece of logic, I don't know. 

Of all the restrictions that were imposed during the pandemic, the one I got least bothered about was putting a mask on to go in to a shop. 

Wasn't there research that indicated unless it was a fully certified surgical mask then the mask wearing was essentially pointless. Meaning for the majority of us who are wearing cloth masks, we are doing it for no apparent reason. 

Also, continual mask wearing can do harm. A mate of mine just referred himself to Albyn due to issues with his sinuses - turns out its been exacerbated by his mask wearing (words of the doctor). He no longer wears a mask and has got himself one of those bent lanyards. He's having to get an operation to fix. 

[NEM]

19 minutes ago, dazzy_deff said:

Wasn't there research that indicated unless it was a fully certified surgical mask then the mask wearing was essentially pointless. Meaning for the majority of us who are wearing cloth masks, we are doing it for no apparent reason. 

Also, continual mask wearing can do harm. A mate of mine just referred himself to Albyn due to issues with his sinuses - turns out its been exacerbated by his mask wearing (words of the doctor). He no longer wears a mask and has got himself one of those bent lanyards. He's having to get an operation to fix. 

Wearing a 30p mask to prevent virus transmission is akin to erecting a wire fence to keep flies out of your garden.  Completely pointless

[The Boofon]

5 minutes ago, NEM said:

Wearing a 30p mask to prevent virus transmission is akin to erecting a wire fence to keep flies out of your garden.  Completely pointless

It would stop some flies. 

[Parklife]

25 minutes ago, dazzy_deff said:

Wasn't there research that indicated unless it was a fully certified surgical mask then the mask wearing was essentially pointless. Meaning for the majority of us who are wearing cloth masks, we are doing it for no apparent reason. 
 

Not sure about pointless in terms of spreading Covid but I think I recall that only an FFP3 mask was likely to do much to stop you getting it if you came in to contact with it. 

25 minutes ago, dazzy_deff said:

Also, continual mask wearing can do harm. A mate of mine just referred himself to Albyn due to issues with his sinuses - turns out its been exacerbated by his mask wearing (words of the doctor). He no longer wears a mask and has got himself one of those bent lanyards. He's having to get an operation to fix. 

Fair enough. I accept it's different for everyone.  Just said wearing one was never more than a minuscule inconvenience for me.  

[BrianFaePerth]

Masks are nothing more than a psychological tool used to ensure the masses are constantly reminded to be in fear of a flu.

 

[Studebaker-90]

I reckon they’re more of a comfort blanket for those who are afraid of everything 

[Parklife]

22 minutes ago, BrianFaePerth said:

Masks are nothing more than a psychological tool used to ensure the masses are constantly reminded to be in fear of a flu.

 

*Muzzles.
 

Mind and call them that ?

[Matt Armstrong's Dog]

31 minutes ago, BrianFaePerth said:

Masks are nothing more than a psychological tool used to ensure the masses are constantly reminded to be in fear of a flu.

 

That's exactly what they are. The enforcement of mask wearing and the alleged "benefits" they purportedly bring is purely designed to play with and embed subconsciously within the human psyche. 

I cannot recall any mask wearing being encouraged, never mind enforced, back in December 1989 when appriximately 29000 folk died during the 'flu epidemic back then. 

[Howard Marks]

15 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

That's exactly what they are. The enforcement of mask wearing and the alleged "benefits" they purportedly bring is purely designed to play with and embed subconsciously within the human psyche. 

I cannot recall any mask wearing being encouraged, never mind enforced, back in December 1989 when appriximately 29000 folk died during the 'flu epidemic back then. 

I do not recall any lockdowns or restrictions during the 1989 flu epidemic either.

If only the pubs closed 90 minutes earlier, that terrible loss of life might have been avoided.

[The Boofon]

1 hour ago, BrianFaePerth said:

Masks are nothing more than a psychological tool used to ensure the masses are constantly reminded to be in fear of a flu.

 

???

 

aye ok. You still wearing a tin foil hat to stop radiation too?

 

Fucking idiot. 

[Parklife]

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

If you say so? Twice? This is an unfortunate way with words.

Not really. It just reflects my attitude towards discussions with yourself.

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

What's also unfortunate is you referring back to the past to support your position that appears to be in total agreement with mine - despite you saying "if you say so" - that we have polar opposite defaults... or have I misinterpreted again and that you're actually saying that our default starting positions are the same?

My starting position is "Is this reasonable? Why is this happening?" You however have attributed a false starting position to me, one that doesn't reflect the reality. 

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Are you disputing or agreeing with me?

For the record, I think you are getting me mixed up with someone else as I don't generally use "climb down" as language and I have zero recollection of ever having posted those four quoted words to you. Not that it matters a fuck.

You're the one who mentioned my starting position as polar opposite to yours. I was showing how in the past you've misunderstood my position on these very matters. 

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

I could invoke you believing in the moon landings fake news if I wanted to go down your route but let's stick to the present eh?
 

 You can invoke the moon landings if you want. You can demonstrate your case for why you think they didn't happen. We can have a discussion on it. 

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

What did you actually mean, that I don't understand your starting outlooks but that you understand mine?

I never claimed to understand yours. However the one you described in your previous post as being yours isn't the "polar opposite" of mines. 

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Perhaps there is a generic or modern usage or interpretation of the words "if you say so" that I am unaware of?

I generally use it when I can't be arsed getting in to a long discussion on something, as I believe it will be fruitless and have no benefit. 

22 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

Please try not to lose overall context by segmenting my post and dealing with it one by one like you always do. This is one post saying the same thing, making the same point. There are times where it is necessary to respond in parts but this really isn't one of them. Try swallowing it whole and responding seamlessly.

Oops! I did it again. 

[Parklife]

29 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

What starting position did I attribute to you that is false?

 

You did. The "complete opposite" of the one you attributed to yourself below. 

4 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

Our default start positions are complete opposites. I don't trust anyone or anything without me doing the work to learn that trust in them is valid and rightfully given (and even then we all make wrong judgements). 

 

[Matt Armstrong's Dog]

47 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Not really. It just reflects my attitude towards discussions with yourself.

My starting position is "Is this reasonable? Why is this happening?" You however have attributed a false starting position to me, one that doesn't reflect the reality. 

You're the one who mentioned my starting position as polar opposite to yours. I was showing how in the past you've misunderstood my position on these very matters. 

 You can invoke the moon landings if you want. You can demonstrate your case for why you think they didn't happen. We can have a discussion on it. 

I never claimed to understand yours. However the one you described in your previous post as being yours isn't the "polar opposite" of mines. 

I generally use it when I can't be arsed getting in to a long discussion on something, as I believe it will be fruitless and have no benefit. 

Oops! I did it again. 

Not Miss Spears's finest tune?. 

[Ke1t]

 

[Redforever86]

11 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Ah, finally, we got there in the end.

Those words are not my starting position. I had already said that we had major differences BEFORE I wrote these words - "I don't trust anyone or anything without me doing the work to learn that trust in them is valid and rightfully given (and even then we all make wrong judgements)" - and they were never intended to be so, a full articulation of the major differences between us, merely just a small example of how I approach every matter.

The reason that you have completely misunderstood and have taken the whole conversation completely out of context is because of your "segmentation", the way you ignore difficult or inconvenient bits and respond only to the words where you feel you have a bone of contention that can stand up to scrutiny.

These were the words of mine that you ignored: -

"The greatest pain in my arse about the imposition of them isn't the physical act of wearing masks. It's the compliance, the mass subjugation to contradictory science and sinister pandemic-management that is very worrying". 

Rather than even seek to understand what my position actually is - my "default starting points" as I called them - and to ask questions as to what the differences were between us, the subsequent discussion on masks alone has exposed a great example of where we differ, where we don't think the same way, where our language isn't comprehensible to each other, where our concepts are totally irreconcilable.

For example, following your first post on showing how "miniscule" the effort was for you, you repeated the point twice more: -

I specifically made mention of my objection to masks, twice, this being the follow-up: -

"The mask being symbolic (of subjugation and compliance) and being enforced without any concrete science to support it - indeed a subject of great dissent amongst scientists - is of the greatest concern to me".

It was your specific failure to respond to this (one) point, ignoring it completely in your segmented responses, twice, that got us both into difficulty. Your repeating how compliant you are only further highlighted how poles apart we are.

This is not a competition Parklife. It's only an exchange of words. I was anticipating the insults to have started by now so well done for keeping a lid on yourself.

Let's just agree that I was right the first time. We have zero common ground in how we think, how we approach conversations and how we express ourselves and the evidence for half a decade from our numerous exchanges is incontrovertible. This is totally down to the fundamental differences between us, our experiences, our learnings, our interests, our outlooks and our frames of reference in particular - our "maps" as the great Dr M Scott Peck referred to.

You and NEM inspired my first post on this thread today. You were both so certain about your respective (and opposite) positions, I couldn't understand how either of you possibly could be. It's gone right round the houses since then. It's ok to be different. It's not ok to fail to use the English language properly and still fail to understand each other. There are reasons for this.

Complete bollocks. 

[Parklife]

52 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Ah, finally, we got there in the end.

Those words are not my starting position. I had already said that we had major differences BEFORE I wrote these words - "I don't trust anyone or anything without me doing the work to learn that trust in them is valid and rightfully given (and even then we all make wrong judgements)" - and they were never intended to be so, a full articulation of the major differences between us, merely just a small example of how I approach every matter.

The reason that you have completely misunderstood and have taken the whole conversation completely out of context is because of your "segmentation", the way you ignore difficult or inconvenient bits and respond only to the words where you feel you have a bone of contention that can stand up to scrutiny.

These were the words of mine that you ignored: -

"The greatest pain in my arse about the imposition of them isn't the physical act of wearing masks. It's the compliance, the mass subjugation to contradictory science and sinister pandemic-management that is very worrying". 

Rather than even seek to understand what my position actually is - my "default starting points" as I called them - and to ask questions as to what the differences were between us, the subsequent discussion on masks alone has exposed a great example of where we differ, where we don't think the same way, where our language isn't comprehensible to each other, where our concepts are totally irreconcilable.

For example, following your first post on showing how "miniscule" the effort was for you, you repeated the point twice more: -

I specifically made mention of my objection to masks, twice, this being the follow-up: -

"The mask being symbolic (of subjugation and compliance) and being enforced without any concrete science to support it - indeed a subject of great dissent amongst scientists - is of the greatest concern to me".

It was your specific failure to respond to this (one) point, ignoring it completely in your segmented responses, twice, that got us both into difficulty. Your repeating how compliant you are only further highlighted how poles apart we are.

I ignored it because I got it and did not need to, nor want to explore it further. 

52 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

This is not a competition Parklife. It's only an exchange of words. I was anticipating the insults to have started by now so well done for keeping a lid on yourself.

You're normally not averse to the insults. Including them being dished out to people you don't know and who aren't members of this board. So congratulations on refraining. 

52 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Let's just agree that I was right the first time. We have zero common ground in how we think, how we approach conversations and how we express ourselves and the evidence for half a decade from our numerous exchanges is incontrovertible. This is totally down to the fundamental differences between us, our experiences, our learnings, our interests, our outlooks and our frames of reference in particular - our "maps" as the great Dr M Scott Peck referred to.

?? Classic. 

52 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

You and NEM inspired my first post on this thread today. You were both so certain about your respective (and opposite) positions, I couldn't understand how either of you possibly could be. It's gone right round the houses since then. It's ok to be different. It's not ok to fail to use the English language properly and still fail to understand each other. There are reasons for this.

Here's me thinking it's just a daft messageboard, not submission of a PHD thesis. 

[NEM]

2 minutes ago, Parklife said:

 

Here's me thinking it's just a daft messageboard, not submission of a PHD thesis. 

You can stop critiquing other posters use of the English language then..... ?

[Parklife]

4 minutes ago, NEM said:

You can stop critiquing other posters use of the English language then..... ?

Haha that's a fair point. 

[Eugenefani]

If you take a PCR test and it comes back positive does that mean you have COVID-19? I’m assuming the PCR test rules out all other viruses?