The failure is not to update national jab programs and fully research the effects of the virus. That would remove the need for social restrictions. I’d like the country to move beyond large windows being its best defence against pandemics, or must we be stuck in the 19thC forever?
It’s exactly that sort of epistemic flexibility that you want in a good lawyer.
Still, without getting all ad hominem about it I suspect the fact that the IEA have published it means we will need to wait a bit longer before finding out what the real cost/benefit trade off looked like.
I am sure that eventually we will come to see that trying to basically stop the 21st century world in its tracks was always likely to fail and cause huge collateral damage. My concern is that lockdowns as a tool will be proposed for every outbreak of anything from now on and the battles against them will go on.
I am amazed at the thought process that goes "unknown rapidly spreading respiratory virus possibly made in a bio weapons lab in china? yeah, let's see how many people die from it before we do anything"
you can argue about how many, you can argue about when did the UK etc realise it wasn't going to be such a big risk, you can argue over whether it was necessary to damp down hospital demand
but this mad frothing demand to do nothing in the face of an actual existential threat to humanity is baffling, it's "let's see if the meteor hits before we try to blow it up stuff"
"20:20 hindsight says seat of pants populist management a bit shit"
The simple facts are:
- the Chinese hid a deadly disease from everyone
- Bozo didn't take it seriously until he got it
- the Tories were too cowardly to do hard lockdowns while they formulated a proper plan, and too populist to present any form of calculated risk strategy
- lots of British people are "my rights" morons so "don't be a dick" advice never going to be as well followed as in e.g. Germany or Sweden
- it would have killed at least 500k if no restrictions were put in place, and no govt is going to own that. The Tories will not even own the care home deaths they caused
Just fooking move on other than blaming the CCP and ensuring they are marginalised to the max along with Putin.
I saw it pointed out that the numbers in this study also show that mandated mask wearing was apparently wildly effective lol. Funnily enough the Telegraph haven't highlighted that part.
The whole thing is an unscientific joke though, I'm sure it will surprise no-one to learn that it was done by economists.
This 'research' claims that UK lockdowns only save 1700 lives.
Set aside the science, set aside the arithmetic, sometimes you look at claims and you just go 'That's bollocks'. This is one of them. Has everyone forgotten the Tiktok / YouTube posts of exhausted doctors and nurses at the end of a shift still dressed in bin bags because there wasn't enough PPE to go around who had been trying to stop patients dying of drowning in the secretions of their own lungs because they went to Cheltenham or similar, or socialised with someone who had? If there had been no lockdown there'd have been another bunch of Cheltenhams the next week, and the week after, and the week after that, until there weren't enough people well enough to go to the next one. 1700 people my arse.
There's been another stupid claim this week, the guy who says that the US has a secret place where it stores complete and incomplete alien spacecraft. That's bollocks too. I don't care if he is an intelligence operative (or whatever he is supposed to be).
The whatabouterists will whinge citing other countries obvs but it’s difficult to think of a worse qualified leader for us to have had than Fat Alex, a man whose entire life is based on waiting for others to do stuff.
Set aside the science, set aside the arithmetic, sometimes you look at claims and you just go 'That's bollocks'. This is one of them. Has everyone forgotten the Tiktok / YouTube posts of exhausted doctors and nurses at the end of a shift still dressed in bin bags because there wasn't enough PPE to go around who had been trying to stop patients dying of drowning in the secretions of their own lungs because they went to Cheltenham or similar, or socialised with someone who had? If there had been no lockdown there'd have been another bunch of Cheltenhams the next week, and the week after, and the week after that, until there weren't enough people well enough to go to the next one. 1700 people my arse.
WELL THANKFULLY THE TELEGRAPH AND THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DON’T SHARE YOUR SCEPTICISM AND NEITHER DO I: THIS STUDY IS WONDERFUL!!
"this was hugely controversial at the time with loads of people here and elsewhere determined that they “didn’t work”"
I don't remember anyone on rof saying that. Perhaps someone completely batshit crazy said that once or twice.
If you think that was ever a common theme for team sane, you're cherry picking the bad arguments or not bothering to understand the good ones.
The serious arguments about lockdowns was always that they were unnecessary, disproportionate, had terrible side effects on kids and teens and mental health, everyone was going to get it anyway at some point, the NHS wasn't really going to collapse, the people dying were dying anyway, etc etc etc. Whatever you think of those arguments, pretending that team sane thought lockdowns "didn't work" is a nonsense.
The difficulty in reaching sensible conclusions on the impact of lockdowns is the counterfactual that people would have stayed at home in any event. It may be that making certain things illegal did only save 1700 but that probably assumes essentially a voluntary lockdown - my firm had all started working from home and had cancelled client and internal social events weeks before the lockdown was announced.
The lockdowns started too late. We didn't need more than one. Other measures would have been sensible instead of the later lockdowns. My friend died because lockdown came too late. Loads of others died - and not those who "would have died anyway" whoever those people are. Plenty of people with Long Covid including young people and children but it just isn't being discussed on MSM. Why not?
Guy - it probably assumes a voluntary lockdown by most people who were old or otherwise vulnerable, while most people who were young and not vulnerable got on with their lives.
I have no idea how reasonable the assumptions were in this study, but you can see that there is room for reasonable assumptions to be made, at least. It doesn't have to assume total lockdown by everybody.
Eh? It was absolutely rife! I make no comment about “Team Sane” generally but you are suffering from a severe memory failure if you genuinely can’t remember that anyone here ever said that lockdowns were not effective.
Given that a major “Team Sane” position was that, as you put it, “everyone was going to get it anyway” and that we might as well therefore “let rip”, I would feel a bit embarrassed about being identified with that “Team”. Would have resulted in a huge number of deaths via rampant covid spread before vaccinations. Let’s not even mention the alleged “Sane” team members who vociferously argued against the possibility, desirability or efficacy of the vaccines. Team Sane indeed
"Guy - it probably assumes a voluntary lockdown by most people who were old or otherwise vulnerable, while most people who were young and not vulnerable got on with their lives."
I think that is the wrong assumption, most companies that could facilitate remote working would have done so regardless of changes to the law, at least during the initial peak.
Another “Team Sane” position that was pants on head ridiculous in retrospect (and, let’s be honest, at the time) was that various social restrictions were going to be with us “forever” - oh no sorry how agonisingly literal-minded of me, I mean to say a very very long time. After all what about liquids in airports!?!?!? Of course that was total bollocks
I couldn't give a shit about the Team Sane designation. I thought it was mainly imposed by your side using it sarcastically.
Anyway, people saying lockdowns "don't work" was not rife. How on earth could anybody say with a straight face that it does not slow the spread of infectious disease if people rarely meet each other. Noone was saying that. If you thought they were, then you weren't taking the trouble to understand what you were reading. Which based on our previous interactions wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Saying they are "not effective" as you have now switched to, sounds like possibly a different thing. If you mean not effective to slow the spread, that's also bollocks and few people if any were saying that. But if you mean not effective because ultimately everyone will get it anyway, sure, people were saying that.
How on earth could anybody say with a straight face that it does not slow the spread of infectious disease if people rarely meet each other. Noone was saying that. If you thought they were, then you weren't taking the trouble to understand what you were reading.
Heh, no - they really were, which is why I found some of these arguments so maddening. “Oh people on my side couldn’t possibly have been saying that - clearly that’s just you misunderstanding them” is very convenient but actually not the case.
Anyway there is no merit to arguing over what people were or weren’t saying 3 years ago. I am clear in my recollection, I doubt either of us can be bothered to try and dig it up.
In particular much was made of the comparison with Sweden - if lockdowns “worked” to limit the spread of disease then how could it be that we had similar deaths to Sweden - therefore they didn’t “work” therefore just forget the whole thing. This line of argument ignored the comparisons between Sweden and other Nordic countries which did better in terms of covid deaths iirc
There was an absolutely huge amount of motivated reasoning going on to “prove” the pointlessness of lockdowns - I don’t blame you for now disavowing it and maybe it is actually the case that you never noticed any of it, but my recollection is quite different
The liquids on planes rule was introduced in response to a very specific plot in or around 2007 I believe.
It became 'the new normal' and lasted for 16 years - hardly a proportionate measure that was dropped as soon as possible after the event.
Lockdown restrictions were neither here or there - each and every place in the western world had pretty much the same outcome regardless of what they did.
"In particular much was made of the comparison with Sweden - if lockdowns “worked” to limit the spread of disease then how could it be that we had similar deaths to Sweden - therefore they didn’t “work” therefore just forget the whole thing."
This right here. Noone ever said Sweden proved that lockdowns didn't work. They said (rightly or wrongly) it proved that lockdowns weren't *necessary*. As people can be trusted to take sensible decisions for themselves without one and the consquences aren't that bad. Completely different thing.
This is QED as far as I am concerned. You just dont bother to understand what other people are saying when you argue with them.
Noone ever said Sweden proved that lockdowns didn't work. They said (rightly or wrongly) it proved that lockdowns weren't *necessary*. As people can be trusted to take sensible decisions for themselves without one and the consquences aren't that bad. Completely different thing.
That’s certainly one interpretation, another is as I described - Sweden had as many deaths as we did, we did a lockdown, therefore lockdowns don’t do anything. I know you want to make it sound as though everyone on “your side” was reasonable and intelligent, that just wasn’t the case though.
Hey Clergs do you agree that lockdowns "work" in the narrow sense that they will slow the spread of infectious disease? I'm guessing the answer is yes?
Hey Clergs do you agree that lockdowns "work" in the narrow sense that they will slow the spread of infectious disease? I'm guessing the answer is yes?
Hey Clergs; back me up in my description of what you said 3 years ago so I can win an argument against someone we both disagreed with on this topic
FWIW Spurius IIRC you were in the upper half of the distribution of anti-COVID measures argumentation, Clergham, EP and the dearly departed Linda/Thuggy firmly in the bottom half. I suspect my recollection of “what Team Sane thought” is biased towards these latter because of how totally mad I thought they were.
Though I do recall we clashed quite bitterly over NZ and what consequence their COVID policies would have - you were persuaded that they would find it extremely difficult to integrate with the rest of the world. I think time has demonstrated you were wrong about that
I probably was more wrong than right about NZ/Aus. It didn't take as long as I thought it might. I suppose they were just waiting for the point at which nobody gave a shit anymore and it came sooner than I predicted.
My position always was, and continues to be, aligned what Whitty et al stated at the start.
Focused protection of the most vulnerable and everyone else crack on.
The heavily discredited Prof Ferguson then knocked up his mad model which was about as technically sophisticated as the video game 'Sim City' but without the graphics. The 500k deaths caught the public imagination and the rest is history.
"we failed to take into account how, absent lockdown, people would have naturally worked from home and avoided social interaction" says study written by middle class w**kers who always had a choice to work from home and ingnoring poor people needed the law to allow them the same privilege, and also ignoring how bozo turned off lockdown for Xmas and everyone ignored social restraint, met up and 1700/day died 12 after Xmas.
0
0
Good to see Chris Vallance getting his shoulder behind the climate emergency now
2
0
Ok risky
0
0
The failure is not to update national jab programs and fully research the effects of the virus. That would remove the need for social restrictions. I’d like the country to move beyond large windows being its best defence against pandemics, or must we be stuck in the 19thC forever?
1
2
Is runnersknee risky?
0
1
Every wet right wing account is risky.
1
1
Is this a new John Hopkins report, or just the publication of the 2022 one, which was thoroughly debunked at the time?
0
0
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/04/covid-19-lockdowns-less-effective-new-research-inquiry/
Appears to be a new release.
0
1
They'd still do it all again.
If there was a new pandemic tomorrow both this government and the next Keir Starmer one would want us all locked down again.
0
0
the sceptics were not wrong, indeed
never again
triple lockah against any form of lockdown policy again, pls - 75% majorities in both houses of parliament and at a plebiscite
0
1
Will never happen laz. Team lockdown will never be persuaded they got it wrong.
4
1
It’s the IEA publication of last year’s debunked and not peer reviewed study. The one John Hopkins University publicly distanced themselves from.
0
0
it’s still plainly correct, even if its conclusions don’t stack up
1
1
So it can be both correct and have conclusions that don’t stack up?
0
0
ofc
2
0
It’s exactly that sort of epistemic flexibility that you want in a good lawyer.
Still, without getting all ad hominem about it I suspect the fact that the IEA have published it means we will need to wait a bit longer before finding out what the real cost/benefit trade off looked like.
0
0
I am sure that eventually we will come to see that trying to basically stop the 21st century world in its tracks was always likely to fail and cause huge collateral damage. My concern is that lockdowns as a tool will be proposed for every outbreak of anything from now on and the battles against them will go on.
5
0
Well now that Tufton St and the Tozzagraph have spoken I don't think we need any further evidence.
1
2
After kaulbach’s post, one can only conclude that runnersknee is, indeed, risky.
5
0
THE TELEGRAPH PROMOTING THIS REVIEW IS CERTAINLY AN ASSURANCE OF ITS QUALITY IN MY BOOK!!
1
1
heh at a plebescite - yeah in a pandemic forcing everyone out to vote on whether to have a lockdown would be a terrific idea...
0
1
I would hope in the future that we will adopt more sophisticated techniques than locking everyone in their homes mind.
1
0
Lol at the mass 180s by everyone calling lockdown sceptics murderers and racists back in the day
6
1
I am amazed at the thought process that goes "unknown rapidly spreading respiratory virus possibly made in a bio weapons lab in china? yeah, let's see how many people die from it before we do anything"
you can argue about how many, you can argue about when did the UK etc realise it wasn't going to be such a big risk, you can argue over whether it was necessary to damp down hospital demand
but this mad frothing demand to do nothing in the face of an actual existential threat to humanity is baffling, it's "let's see if the meteor hits before we try to blow it up stuff"
3
1
THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS HAS PUBLISHED THIS STUDY?!?
VERY IMPRESSIVE!!
5
1
"20:20 hindsight says seat of pants populist management a bit shit"
The simple facts are:
- the Chinese hid a deadly disease from everyone
- Bozo didn't take it seriously until he got it
- the Tories were too cowardly to do hard lockdowns while they formulated a proper plan, and too populist to present any form of calculated risk strategy
- lots of British people are "my rights" morons so "don't be a dick" advice never going to be as well followed as in e.g. Germany or Sweden
- it would have killed at least 500k if no restrictions were put in place, and no govt is going to own that. The Tories will not even own the care home deaths they caused
Just fooking move on other than blaming the CCP and ensuring they are marginalised to the max along with Putin.
1
1
Lol, Team Sane still absolutely furious we managed the pandemic so well, despite their irresponsible childishness. You're still welcome.
1
1
I saw it pointed out that the numbers in this study also show that mandated mask wearing was apparently wildly effective lol. Funnily enough the Telegraph haven't highlighted that part.
The whole thing is an unscientific joke though, I'm sure it will surprise no-one to learn that it was done by economists.
4
1
the fvcking IEA LOL
1
1
The research was shit, the published paper is worse. It's even been disowned by Johns Hopkins.
Lockdowns remain, of course, and absolutely with unassailable logic, an effective way of dealing with infectious pandemics.
0
0
Of course they are an effective way of dealing with infectious pandemics.
You could slow a flu pandemic or a cold pandemic in the same way.
The question is whether it's a necessary/proportionate response. Which is only partly a medical question.
This ought to be obvious, not sure why people keep missing the point.
Faod I have no idea whether this research paper is reliable or complete bollocks.
0
0
this was hugely controversial at the time with loads of people here and elsewhere determined that they “didn’t work”
0
0
Johns Hopkins
0
0
Not good enough for you?
0
1
Wot sieteocho said
2
1
This 'research' claims that UK lockdowns only save 1700 lives.
Set aside the science, set aside the arithmetic, sometimes you look at claims and you just go 'That's bollocks'. This is one of them. Has everyone forgotten the Tiktok / YouTube posts of exhausted doctors and nurses at the end of a shift still dressed in bin bags because there wasn't enough PPE to go around who had been trying to stop patients dying of drowning in the secretions of their own lungs because they went to Cheltenham or similar, or socialised with someone who had? If there had been no lockdown there'd have been another bunch of Cheltenhams the next week, and the week after, and the week after that, until there weren't enough people well enough to go to the next one. 1700 people my arse.
There's been another stupid claim this week, the guy who says that the US has a secret place where it stores complete and incomplete alien spacecraft. That's bollocks too. I don't care if he is an intelligence operative (or whatever he is supposed to be).
0
0
The whatabouterists will whinge citing other countries obvs but it’s difficult to think of a worse qualified leader for us to have had than Fat Alex, a man whose entire life is based on waiting for others to do stuff.
1
1
WELL THANKFULLY THE TELEGRAPH AND THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DON’T SHARE YOUR SCEPTICISM AND NEITHER DO I: THIS STUDY IS WONDERFUL!!
1
0
I have been graced with a response from BREXITBREXIT! My day is complete.
0
0
Thanks for sharing your hunch
0
1
"this was hugely controversial at the time with loads of people here and elsewhere determined that they “didn’t work”"
I don't remember anyone on rof saying that. Perhaps someone completely batshit crazy said that once or twice.
If you think that was ever a common theme for team sane, you're cherry picking the bad arguments or not bothering to understand the good ones.
The serious arguments about lockdowns was always that they were unnecessary, disproportionate, had terrible side effects on kids and teens and mental health, everyone was going to get it anyway at some point, the NHS wasn't really going to collapse, the people dying were dying anyway, etc etc etc. Whatever you think of those arguments, pretending that team sane thought lockdowns "didn't work" is a nonsense.
0
0
The difficulty in reaching sensible conclusions on the impact of lockdowns is the counterfactual that people would have stayed at home in any event. It may be that making certain things illegal did only save 1700 but that probably assumes essentially a voluntary lockdown - my firm had all started working from home and had cancelled client and internal social events weeks before the lockdown was announced.
1
1
The lockdowns started too late. We didn't need more than one. Other measures would have been sensible instead of the later lockdowns. My friend died because lockdown came too late. Loads of others died - and not those who "would have died anyway" whoever those people are. Plenty of people with Long Covid including young people and children but it just isn't being discussed on MSM. Why not?
0
0
Guy - it probably assumes a voluntary lockdown by most people who were old or otherwise vulnerable, while most people who were young and not vulnerable got on with their lives.
I have no idea how reasonable the assumptions were in this study, but you can see that there is room for reasonable assumptions to be made, at least. It doesn't have to assume total lockdown by everybody.
1
1
Agree ER. Listen to Any Answers last week for heartbreaking tale. Fvck Johnson in the eye for his bullshit.
0
0
Eh? It was absolutely rife! I make no comment about “Team Sane” generally but you are suffering from a severe memory failure if you genuinely can’t remember that anyone here ever said that lockdowns were not effective.
0
1
can we just forget the idiotic “team sane” designation btw
2
1
Given that a major “Team Sane” position was that, as you put it, “everyone was going to get it anyway” and that we might as well therefore “let rip”, I would feel a bit embarrassed about being identified with that “Team”. Would have resulted in a huge number of deaths via rampant covid spread before vaccinations. Let’s not even mention the alleged “Sane” team members who vociferously argued against the possibility, desirability or efficacy of the vaccines. Team Sane indeed
0
1
"Guy - it probably assumes a voluntary lockdown by most people who were old or otherwise vulnerable, while most people who were young and not vulnerable got on with their lives."
I think that is the wrong assumption, most companies that could facilitate remote working would have done so regardless of changes to the law, at least during the initial peak.
0
1
Another “Team Sane” position that was pants on head ridiculous in retrospect (and, let’s be honest, at the time) was that various social restrictions were going to be with us “forever” - oh no sorry how agonisingly literal-minded of me, I mean to say a very very long time. After all what about liquids in airports!?!?!? Of course that was total bollocks
0
1
Blistering barnacles
0
0
Erm, I am in Western Australia.
We were blocked up from the rest of the world for a very long period of time.
While I missed my family, and, towards the end, it was a bit ridiculous, it undoubtedly saved people's lives.
0
1
Guy - that just makes the position better ie less need for lockdown.
Although work is not the only place people meet in large numbers. School, shopping etc. WFH does not mean effectively lockdown.
0
1
I couldn't give a shit about the Team Sane designation. I thought it was mainly imposed by your side using it sarcastically.
Anyway, people saying lockdowns "don't work" was not rife. How on earth could anybody say with a straight face that it does not slow the spread of infectious disease if people rarely meet each other. Noone was saying that. If you thought they were, then you weren't taking the trouble to understand what you were reading. Which based on our previous interactions wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Saying they are "not effective" as you have now switched to, sounds like possibly a different thing. If you mean not effective to slow the spread, that's also bollocks and few people if any were saying that. But if you mean not effective because ultimately everyone will get it anyway, sure, people were saying that.
0
1
Heh, no - they really were, which is why I found some of these arguments so maddening. “Oh people on my side couldn’t possibly have been saying that - clearly that’s just you misunderstanding them” is very convenient but actually not the case.
0
1
Anyway there is no merit to arguing over what people were or weren’t saying 3 years ago. I am clear in my recollection, I doubt either of us can be bothered to try and dig it up.
0
1
In particular much was made of the comparison with Sweden - if lockdowns “worked” to limit the spread of disease then how could it be that we had similar deaths to Sweden - therefore they didn’t “work” therefore just forget the whole thing. This line of argument ignored the comparisons between Sweden and other Nordic countries which did better in terms of covid deaths iirc
0
1
There was an absolutely huge amount of motivated reasoning going on to “prove” the pointlessness of lockdowns - I don’t blame you for now disavowing it and maybe it is actually the case that you never noticed any of it, but my recollection is quite different
2
1
PS thanks for the little dig about “our previous interactions” - yes I think you’re a bit of a cock too m7
0
1
I certainly can't be bothered.
We could ask Clergs what she thinks I suppose.
Surely even she would say lockdowns actually "work" in the sense that they will slow the spread of an infectious disease.
Paging Clergs to the thread.
0
1
A few people thought it was a muuuh hoax and therefore lockdown was unnecessary
Others said only 50 people would die, couldn’t back down from that position and therefore it was just a cold anyway and SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!
all the fun of the fair on here
0
0
The liquids on planes rule was introduced in response to a very specific plot in or around 2007 I believe.
It became 'the new normal' and lasted for 16 years - hardly a proportionate measure that was dropped as soon as possible after the event.
Lockdown restrictions were neither here or there - each and every place in the western world had pretty much the same outcome regardless of what they did.
0
0
"In particular much was made of the comparison with Sweden - if lockdowns “worked” to limit the spread of disease then how could it be that we had similar deaths to Sweden - therefore they didn’t “work” therefore just forget the whole thing."
This right here. Noone ever said Sweden proved that lockdowns didn't work. They said (rightly or wrongly) it proved that lockdowns weren't *necessary*. As people can be trusted to take sensible decisions for themselves without one and the consquences aren't that bad. Completely different thing.
This is QED as far as I am concerned. You just dont bother to understand what other people are saying when you argue with them.
2
1
The range of delusions included:
- COVID isn’t even a proper disease anyway
- lockdowns don’t achieve anything positive, only bad stuff
- maybe it’s actually good if loads of old people die? Do they actually like being alive? It’s a kindness really (This was mainly clergham tbf)
- there will never be a vaccine you fools, they’ve already tried for ages for colds (mainly lindaradlett)
- the NHS should just do things differently to solve all the problems. What are we clapping them for!!!
- truly wacky vaccine and masks = Nazis stuff (again mainly clergham)
0
1
is it good that old people are dying sloooowly in horrible conditions instead? and forwhy?
0
1
That’s certainly one interpretation, another is as I described - Sweden had as many deaths as we did, we did a lockdown, therefore lockdowns don’t do anything. I know you want to make it sound as though everyone on “your side” was reasonable and intelligent, that just wasn’t the case though.
1
0
😆
0
1
Never change. JK, you definitely won’t
0
1
Hey Clergs do you agree that lockdowns "work" in the narrow sense that they will slow the spread of infectious disease? I'm guessing the answer is yes?
1
1
thanks for rehearsing this argument again EP, very helpful as an example of the kind of wrong comparison I described above.
0
0
- there will never be a vaccine you fools, they’ve already tried for ages for colds (mainly lindaradlett)‘
ah yes, forgot that one. Yappicus turning up to scream abuse at every turn.
0
1
Hey Clergs; back me up in my description of what you said 3 years ago so I can win an argument against someone we both disagreed with on this topic
0
0
Would be much obliged.
0
0
FWIW Spurius IIRC you were in the upper half of the distribution of anti-COVID measures argumentation, Clergham, EP and the dearly departed Linda/Thuggy firmly in the bottom half. I suspect my recollection of “what Team Sane thought” is biased towards these latter because of how totally mad I thought they were.
0
1
Though I do recall we clashed quite bitterly over NZ and what consequence their COVID policies would have - you were persuaded that they would find it extremely difficult to integrate with the rest of the world. I think time has demonstrated you were wrong about that
0
1
Very kind of you. Canadian was our star player.
I'm prepared to extend the same qualified compliment to you. I bet you never microwaved your post.
0
0
bleach spray from a distance
0
0
I probably was more wrong than right about NZ/Aus. It didn't take as long as I thought it might. I suppose they were just waiting for the point at which nobody gave a shit anymore and it came sooner than I predicted.
0
1
fair
0
0
My position always was, and continues to be, aligned what Whitty et al stated at the start.
Focused protection of the most vulnerable and everyone else crack on.
The heavily discredited Prof Ferguson then knocked up his mad model which was about as technically sophisticated as the video game 'Sim City' but without the graphics. The 500k deaths caught the public imagination and the rest is history.
0
0
Shame Clergs didn't want to play, I've had to put the champagne back on ice.
0
0
come now, no1 believes this is ur 1st time on rof
0
0
Well you believe I'm risky, apparently.
So you must think I'm very stupid. Surely stupid enough to say that.
0
1
do i?
1
1
"we failed to take into account how, absent lockdown, people would have naturally worked from home and avoided social interaction" says study written by middle class w**kers who always had a choice to work from home and ingnoring poor people needed the law to allow them the same privilege, and also ignoring how bozo turned off lockdown for Xmas and everyone ignored social restraint, met up and 1700/day died 12 after Xmas.
0
1
Apparently it was a brief phase you went through the day before yesterday.
0
0
Wot jelly said ffs.
0
1
i was probably just pointing out u sed something fooking stupid, a la risky, rather than u literally r risky. who 2bf, u might b
Join the discussion