The Great Amnesty

I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about. I was still editing it.

As the article states, “the public was told repeatedly, for months, both explicitly and implicitly, that the vaccines would prevent transmission.”

That vaccines prevent or reduce the chances of transmission is complete nonsense. It’s a lie. To keep repeating this is unhelpful.

1 Like

Sorry, but the deaths excess and the hospitals collapsing were there. It wasn’t an easy to handle situation. Naturally the health infrastructures are not dimensioned for a pandemic.

The people you mention, at least some, were right in some regards and also wrong in some others.

Yeah, I did. And it is not really a response to my point, and the “article” itself is also wrong in some ways. I feel lazy to explain it, let’s say you are right and I didn’t read it, so you are happy.

Hmmm I´m not sure about that either. To me the biggest problem has been politicians imposing a truth and making people censor and bully other people.

1 Like

I see you have more determination than me. I decided it wasn’t worth it. Haven’t read his replies, if there’s any, but I suspect he still insists he’s right xD

1 Like

This is pretty much what I’m saying. Governments around the world imposed the “truth” that existing treatments didn’t work and that the new experimental vaccines were “safe and effective.”

I think, when people are arguing over which crime was “the worst”, the fact that multiple crimes were being committed simultaneously ought to render the debate moot.

For me personally, I find it hard to disentangle any one act of malice from any other. Each lie was predicated upon some other lie, and each injustice flowed naturally from some other injustice.

I said the biggest problem.

Did you see that happen, with your own eyes? My niece was there in the thick of it. She told me what happened. There certainly was a “collapse” of sorts - this was specifically in the UK - but it had nothing whatsoever to do with COVID. It was a combination of perverse decisions that rendered the health service unable to cope, and prevented doctors from treating patients. In no sane world is “the health service is collapsing” a sensible justification for shutting down the health service.

Even if - for the sake of argument - the health service had been genuinely overwhelmed, the simple and obvious solution would be to throw money and resources into relieving the pressure.

A few countries did just leave doctors alone and refrained from creating panic. Broadly speaking, they’re doing better today than the countries that went looneytunes.

1 Like

UK did that at the beginning, business as usual you know, and then there was a huge problem. Brazil did it too. Not the best outcome. USA at the beginning too. They didn’t know what to do with the coffins.

Anyway, I don’t want to derail, not too much, the conversation.

Well, this isn’t true - it was media/government spin - but if you’d like to assume that it is true for the sake of argument: are you proposing that all the subsequent harms that were inflicted upon the population were necessary, rational, lawful, and ultimately produced a better outcome than - for example - just allowing doctors to do what they ordinarily do, supporting them with money and resources, and telling the general public the truth about (say) COVID risk factors? Do you think the government had the right or duty to harm persons A, B and C in order to (hypothetically) protect person D? Do you think it was reasonable to lie to people, stir up hatred and conflict in the population, and deploy the police to prevent people going about their lawful business?

1 Like

What exactly isn’t true? that the UK government had to change their “nah, it’s just a flu and we aren’t going to do anything” policy? Really?

That the government were forced by circumstance to throw a rational and well-planned pandemic response out the window (they were not “doing nothing” - they were following expert advice devised in saner times) and replace it with an ad-hoc mishmash of panic-driven BS.

Whatever the reason for their about-face, it wasn’t an overwhelming caseload of people with COVID. Look at the ONS statistics.

2 Likes

So what happened, according to you?

I have absolutely no idea. It is and will remain a mystery. That, IMO, is precisely why we’re owed an apology (and an explanation).

One theory I read is that the government were under extreme pressure from various unions to “lock down” - specifically the transport union and the teacher’s union. I have no idea if that’s true, but it seems at least plausible, particularly given Johnson’s (alleged) “I have to do what they tell me” remark.

Do you have a better theory?

Er…

You claimed that vaccines reduce the chance of granny catching Covid, without providing any evidence.

That’s the same argument that Pfizer and the others used to sell the vaccines and impose all sorts of tyranny.

I cited a number of sources, including from Pfizer, whereby it showed they clearly started that false narrative.

I also cited Pfizer themselves confessing they didn’t actually even test for that.

And yet the claim was repeated, including by yourself.

So, I’m simply asking for evidence to support your specific claim.

How so? Is this another claim you are too “lazy” to back up?

Your original point, which I challenged, was that “vaccines reduce the chances of granny catching Covid.”

So far, you haven’t provided any evidence to support that claim.

:clap:

I’m beginning to think, given the news that covid is running at a record pace in China now, that covid was the beginning of the Big Elderly Cull they so desperately need.

2 Likes

I wouldn’t put it past Winnie, but he’ll be disappointed. He does seem to be trying his best to increase transmission by keeping people together indoors. However, the fatality rate is too low to make any significant difference.