Lockdown = Absolutely ZERO Flu

[Hammer]

The strange thing about a virus is that it can't self-replicate but needs to invade a living host cell to reproduce. They are effectively rogue strands of DNA but mutations can occur in the reproduction process. Do they even qualify as a true form of life? So I don't think they can battle each other for dominance.

I've only had real flu a couple of times in my life, anyone remember Hong Kong flu of the early 1970s. Real flu is a f***ing bastard and you have difficulty even reaching the bathroom from your bedroom. It certainly wont have gone away. The strains we are fighting today are derivatives of the 1918/19 flu which they think was also the source of an epidemic in the 1800s and possibly the Middle Ages as well.

They tend to monitor the flu strains in Australia before producing the vaccine for the winter here in the UK.

Viruses aren't usually considered living organisms, no.

 

[SurreyMackem]

Got a call today from the GPs asking me to book a flu jab if I haven't already had it.

 

[robbied1]

You tried to pass it off as your own work. You’re well known on this forum for tall tales and inventing stories.

Like SAFCOldie, enable, robbied1, Mackemmark74, themanagersnot2blame and a few others you’re known for making posts that generate controversy

And you young man are known for sending abusive messages, which is indeed a criminal act. You regularly break the law this way.

 

[Ambivalent Dave]

I'll just be honest, I'm sick of people telling me 2+2 =5. I was right about the masks, I was right about the mutations and I was right about the covid passes.

I liked the bit where you were right about everything reopening in March too

 

[themanagersnot2blame]

You tried to pass it off as your own work. You’re well known on this forum for tall tales and inventing stories.

Like SAFCOldie, enable, robbied1, Mackemmark74, themanagersnot2blame and a few others you’re known for making posts that generate controversy

I don’t have anything controversial to say.
Please explain what is controversial about?

* Opposition to unprecedented government control on very basic freedoms.
* Opposition to the dehumanisation of people and belligerent disregard for social, economic or emotional needs.
* Opposition to a deliberate psychological propaganda campaign that has good people terrified and will cause lasting harm.
* Opposition to short sighted and unprecedented interventions that (may or may not) achieve the intended short term goals but will definitely result in directly consequential death and destruction further down the line.
* Opposition to the deliberate use of fear to further divide the country.
* Opposition to coercion strategies to force people to take a vaccine for what may be a ‘low risk’ infection to them.
* Opposition to a two tiered society (medical apartheid) based on the above.

 

[Scorer]

“People like yourself”, don’t understand that senior scientists (that have climbed the ladder to become trusted advisors to government and world bodies) are not free to (or inevitably interested in) acting entirely in accordance with their own beliefs and paying no attention to political interference or intervention.

Can the scientific consensus on the efficacy of masks change over time - absolutely.

Can decades of scientific consensus change overnight from ‘probably a bit pointless/ potential to cause as much harm as any good’ to ‘utterly essential’ overnight? Absolutely no chance.

Could a government keen to ‘be seen to be doing something’ seek to negotiate support (for an intervention its scientist were largely ambivalent about), as part of the negotiation on measures to be introduced? Could this change be implemented overnight? Absolutely.

... ps keep attacking the person rather than the argument if you think that’s an effective way of getting your message across.

I don’t think there actually was consensus that masks didn’t work, clearly those parts of the world that have had frequent novel virus outbreaks have higher use of them generally and the use of them was certainly recommended to medical practitioners. Seems obvious that the supply issue informed the view to at least some extent and the debate predominantly wasn’t “ do they reduce transmission” but “ do they reduce transmission enough to be worth the negatives for the population at large”. Despite use as medical ppe for decades the evidence for mass use wasn’t really conclusive for general population use and probably still isn’t categorical but is indicated as likely to be helpful as part of an overall strategy.