Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 256 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 9.51pm
Originally posted by eaglesdare Hahahahahahaha I completely rest my case now! Goodnight and good day! Misses the point for a third time. Oh well, I tried Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 9.51pm

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Hahahahahahaha I completely rest my case now!
Goodnight and good day!

Misses the point for a third time. Oh well, I tried

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 10 Jan 23 10.24pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC It's not an equivalence. But it is a fact that the two exist and feed off each other, and that a lot of people make a lot of money from that on both sides. Just like it takes work to weed out the good from the bad on the scientific/pharma side, the same applies to those questioning it. Can't just latch on to the most popular mouthpiece or the one that you happen to agree with. As should be evident from my previous post re. Ben Goldacre, it's rather obviously not an incorruptible and unquestionable source and that is of course therefore not my viewpoint at all. Also by definition science literally can't be unquestionable otherwise it ceases to become scientific. The nuance here is whether certain lines of questioning hold up to scrutiny or not. Anyone can take a pop but it requires rigour and proof to change consensus, and certainly a lot more than carefully baited and hacked together tiktoks (note, some people do provide some valuable balance and decent content, Brand is a good example as you've shared before but even he can get a bit excited sometimes). To your point, science evolves. Therefore views should evolve with it as things change, and as things change and evolve one should also do the same. That's my viewpoint. To do anything else is unscientific. If in 10 years consensus showed that actually we never needed a vaccine at all and it had no real impact, then I'd have to go with that. Why wouldn't you? The difference here is that I'd wager a lot of people on here would never shift their viewpoint regardless of topic � that's a very odd way to exist in my opinion. I agree with pretty much all of that. I think it's a good point that ultimately we all should be open to changing our mind once something is proven by objective sources (that prove themselves) rather than holding onto an opinion due to a stubborn ego. We will all be wrong on something(s) and will have believed something that events later showed was highly questionable....for example I was once a convinced neo con who listened to Christopher Hitchens and the like over the Iraq war. While I never and still don't buy into the original objections to that war, oil for example, I do freely admit that I was wrong to support it for the typical neo con reasons given. It's just healthy to keep in mind that none of us holds the path to divine truth and that our interpretation is always a best guess. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 10.26pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

10 Jan 23 10.24pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

It's not an equivalence. But it is a fact that the two exist and feed off each other, and that a lot of people make a lot of money from that on both sides. Just like it takes work to weed out the good from the bad on the scientific/pharma side, the same applies to those questioning it. Can't just latch on to the most popular mouthpiece or the one that you happen to agree with.

As should be evident from my previous post re. Ben Goldacre, it's rather obviously not an incorruptible and unquestionable source and that is of course therefore not my viewpoint at all. Also by definition science literally can't be unquestionable otherwise it ceases to become scientific. The nuance here is whether certain lines of questioning hold up to scrutiny or not. Anyone can take a pop but it requires rigour and proof to change consensus, and certainly a lot more than carefully baited and hacked together tiktoks (note, some people do provide some valuable balance and decent content, Brand is a good example as you've shared before but even he can get a bit excited sometimes).

To your point, science evolves. Therefore views should evolve with it as things change, and as things change and evolve one should also do the same. That's my viewpoint. To do anything else is unscientific.

If in 10 years consensus showed that actually we never needed a vaccine at all and it had no real impact, then I'd have to go with that. Why wouldn't you? The difference here is that I'd wager a lot of people on here would never shift their viewpoint regardless of topic � that's a very odd way to exist in my opinion.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

I think it's a good point that ultimately we all should be open to changing our mind once something is proven by objective sources (that prove themselves) rather than holding onto an opinion due to a stubborn ego.

We will all be wrong on something(s) and will have believed something that events later showed was highly questionable....for example I was once a convinced neo con who listened to Christopher Hitchens and the like over the Iraq war. While I never and still don't buy into the original objections to that war, oil for example, I do freely admit that I was wrong to support it for the typical neo con reasons given.

It's just healthy to keep in mind that none of us holds the path to divine truth and that our interpretation is always a best guess.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 10.26pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 10 Jan 23 10.52pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Surely you have to be sceptical to everything, at all times though? Not just the things you ideologically feel more sceptical about. Recency bias and preconception/assumption isn't particularly useful beyond creating a hypothesis Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 9.30pm) Yep, I have become quite cynical about most things. I think you can have foundational beliefs based upon life experience....for example, being sceptical is one of them (foundational beliefs can still be wrong but it's going to be rarer). Beyond that I think we all have to accept that it all becomes degrees of opinion. I suppose we could just take a position where we don't have a view. Perhaps that's not always such a terrible position to take. But the unfortunate and sometimes annoying reality of our lives is that often we don't have that luxury and we are sometimes compelled to make decisions. I suppose the covid situation was one of those. It's also a truism that often there isn't a clear cut binary right or wrong. Real life isn't mathematics and often answers are on a scale or spectrum and are more about worldview. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 10.55pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

10 Jan 23 10.52pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Surely you have to be sceptical to everything, at all times though? Not just the things you ideologically feel more sceptical about.

Recency bias and preconception/assumption isn't particularly useful beyond creating a hypothesis

Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 9.30pm)

Yep, I have become quite cynical about most things.

I think you can have foundational beliefs based upon life experience....for example, being sceptical is one of them (foundational beliefs can still be wrong but it's going to be rarer).

Beyond that I think we all have to accept that it all becomes degrees of opinion. I suppose we could just take a position where we don't have a view. Perhaps that's not always such a terrible position to take.

But the unfortunate and sometimes annoying reality of our lives is that often we don't have that luxury and we are sometimes compelled to make decisions. I suppose the covid situation was one of those.

It's also a truism that often there isn't a clear cut binary right or wrong. Real life isn't mathematics and often answers are on a scale or spectrum and are more about worldview.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 10.55pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 10 Jan 23 11.08pm
Millions of years of evolving, along with viruses, to get to Homo Erectus. Another million years of evolving, along with viruses, and Homo Sapien emerges. A few hundred thousand years later we evolve into modern man, along with viruses. A few thousand years later we become civilised, get educated, and science is discovered. Less than 150 years ago, modern medicine arrived. All of a sudden, these viruses that we evolved along with are deemed a menace. Why is that? Are they not a part of evolution anymore? Are they not as integral to our existence as they always were? Even if the bad ones are weeding out the weak and infirm, isn't that what evolution is all about? Are they not entitled to exist anymore? Or is it a case of science and medicine being the modern day idol/god to make sacrifices for? No more slaughtering goats or chickens to ensure a good harvest, but vaccination, social distancing, mask wearing and lockdown to ensure your (and everyone else's) longevity. "AND PAY UP TOO!" Highest death rate for 50 years barring the initial pandemic. I wonder why... Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 10 Jan 23 11.08pm

Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Millions of years of evolving, along with viruses, to get to Homo Erectus. Another million years of evolving, along with viruses, and Homo Sapien emerges. A few hundred thousand years later we evolve into modern man, along with viruses. A few thousand years later we become civilised, get educated, and science is discovered. Less than 150 years ago, modern medicine arrived.

All of a sudden, these viruses that we evolved along with are deemed a menace. Why is that? Are they not a part of evolution anymore? Are they not as integral to our existence as they always were? Even if the bad ones are weeding out the weak and infirm, isn't that what evolution is all about? Are they not entitled to exist anymore?

Or is it a case of science and medicine being the modern day idol/god to make sacrifices for? No more slaughtering goats or chickens to ensure a good harvest, but vaccination, social distancing, mask wearing and lockdown to ensure your (and everyone else's) longevity.

"AND PAY UP TOO!"

Highest death rate for 50 years barring the initial pandemic. I wonder why...

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 10 Jan 23 11.31pm
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Even if the bad ones are weeding out the weak and infirm, isn't that what evolution is all about? Are they not entitled to exist anymore? Or is it a case of science and medicine being the modern day idol/god to make sacrifices for? In one sense you're right, but at the same time would you refuse the wide range of medical treatment and breakthroughs for yourself where they may be able to save your life, or would you say 'it's time to go!'. There's little impulse greater than wanting to stay alive, and while that can certainly lead to bad decisions, and significant missteps too, as could be argued with covid, in general peoples problems with modern medicine or preference for chewing on some leaves and hoping for the best soon switch when they have a significant health concern.
Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

10 Jan 23 11.31pm

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Even if the bad ones are weeding out the weak and infirm, isn't that what evolution is all about? Are they not entitled to exist anymore?

Or is it a case of science and medicine being the modern day idol/god to make sacrifices for?

In one sense you're right, but at the same time would you refuse the wide range of medical treatment and breakthroughs for yourself where they may be able to save your life, or would you say 'it's time to go!'. There's little impulse greater than wanting to stay alive, and while that can certainly lead to bad decisions, and significant missteps too, as could be argued with covid, in general peoples problems with modern medicine or preference for chewing on some leaves and hoping for the best soon switch when they have a significant health concern.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 11 Jan 23 12.17am
Originally posted by MrWhyNot In one sense you're right, but at the same time would you refuse the wide range of medical treatment and breakthroughs for yourself where they may be able to save your life, or would you say 'it's time to go!'. There's little impulse greater than wanting to stay alive, and while that can certainly lead to bad decisions, and significant missteps too, as could be argued with covid, in general peoples problems with modern medicine or preference for chewing on some leaves and hoping for the best soon switch when they have a significant health concern. If I can freely chew on some leaves, then I have no problem. If the government are making me pay to do that, I do. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 11 Jan 23 12.17am

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

If I can freely chew on some leaves, then I have no problem. If the government are making me pay to do that, I do.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 11 Jan 23 12.32am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 If I can freely chew on some leaves, then I have no problem. If the government are making me pay to do that, I do. There's certainly truth to that. Their legally endorsed my way or the highway approach - which of course they did not follow themselves - has created knock on health crises and done in countless businesses. Not giving proper thought to energy needs for decades is another disasater coming home to roost too. A further nail in the coffin on both counts.
Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

11 Jan 23 12.32am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

If I can freely chew on some leaves, then I have no problem. If the government are making me pay to do that, I do.

There's certainly truth to that. Their legally endorsed my way or the highway approach - which of course they did not follow themselves - has created knock on health crises and done in countless businesses. Not giving proper thought to energy needs for decades is another disasater coming home to roost too. A further nail in the coffin on both counts.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 11 Jan 23 12.43am
Originally posted by MrWhyNot There's certainly truth to that. Their legally endorsed my way or the highway approach - which of course they did not follow themselves - has created knock on health crises and done in countless businesses. Not giving proper thought to energy needs for decades is another disasater coming home to roost too. A further nail in the coffin on both counts. Indeed. As for the energy 'crisis', we all had a warning of that in the early 70's. Now, however, fifty odd years later, it seems that we, the public, will pay for that too. BTW, you post like a less aggressive previous poster. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 11 Jan 23 12.43am

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

Indeed. As for the energy 'crisis', we all had a warning of that in the early 70's. Now, however, fifty odd years later, it seems that we, the public, will pay for that too.

BTW, you post like a less aggressive previous poster.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 11 Jan 23 12.51am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Indeed. As for the energy 'crisis', we all had a warning of that in the early 70's. Now, however, fifty odd years later, it seems that we, the public, will pay for that too. BTW, you post like a less aggressive previous poster. 100%. Governments rarely look beyond their own terms, be that five years or personal. That's a human trait, but it's a shame it's such a prominent feature of the system that rules over us, as we're the ones who ultimately pay the price.
Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

11 Jan 23 12.51am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Indeed. As for the energy 'crisis', we all had a warning of that in the early 70's. Now, however, fifty odd years later, it seems that we, the public, will pay for that too.

BTW, you post like a less aggressive previous poster.

100%. Governments rarely look beyond their own terms, be that five years or personal. That's a human trait, but it's a shame it's such a prominent feature of the system that rules over us, as we're the ones who ultimately pay the price.

Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 11 Jan 23 1.17am
Originally posted by eaglesdare Yes a lot of people who took the vaccine were misinformed of the side effects and adverse reactions and as to why they should take it. But now alot of them have done research and are informed and have chosen not to take the booster shot. You could argue that a great many who didn't were misinformed too but at this point in time it's been circulating long enough, that there's wide long term protection in the population. We are where we are with loss of confidence in government, a health crisis and businesses going under left, right and centre. Much of that was probably unavoidable, but it does likely mean that if something much worse than covid hits us people will do their own thing anyway.. so Tim's survival of the fitness scenario will come to the fore.
Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

11 Jan 23 1.17am

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Yes a lot of people who took the vaccine were misinformed of the side effects and adverse reactions and as to why they should take it.

But now alot of them have done research and are informed and have chosen not to take the booster shot.

You could argue that a great many who didn't were misinformed too but at this point in time it's been circulating long enough, that there's wide long term protection in the population.

We are where we are with loss of confidence in government, a health crisis and businesses going under left, right and centre. Much of that was probably unavoidable, but it does likely mean that if something much worse than covid hits us people will do their own thing anyway.. so Tim's survival of the fitness scenario will come to the fore.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 13 Jan 23 3.14pm
Interesting, especially in the light of the recent MP suspension. [Tweet Link] 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

13 Jan 23 3.14pm

Interesting, especially in the light of the recent MP suspension.

[Tweet Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 13 Jan 23 10.08pm
I see that the CDC is finally going to Investigate the Link Between Strokes & COVID-19 Vaccines "The CDC is now saying there have been enough cases of people who have received the vaccine and then suffered a stroke" Another day goes by I am delighted I never got the clot shot
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

13 Jan 23 10.08pm

I see that the CDC is finally going to Investigate the Link Between Strokes & COVID-19 Vaccines

"The CDC is now saying there have been enough cases of people who have received the vaccine and then suffered a stroke"

Another day goes by I am delighted I never got the clot shot

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 256 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Site Map

Sponsors