WHO Poll
Q: 2021/22 What competition should we prioritise this season?
a. The league is our bread & butter, so this year let's have a club sandwich
25%
  
b. We're owed an FA Cup after Gerrard nicked our last one in 06, our name's on it in 22
9%
  
c. A bye to the League Cup 3rd round gives us a good start, let's make it count
6%
  
d. The Europa is our best ticket to the Champions League, this is the one
37%
  
e. What's wrong with you, let's do the lot, has the quadruple ever been done
24%
  



goose 12:23 Wed Jan 22
This coronavirus in China
anyone else worried? 9 dead so far.

CNY soon so the virus will spread very quickly if they cannot control it. It'll be in Europe by the end of CNY if not earlier.

is this the end of humanity?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51202216

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

BRANDED 12:11 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
When someone says “we follow the science” you have to ask, as I have for two years, who’s science? Who is paying for the scientist and why are they making the conclusions they are making? If they are influenced by politics and money it should be revealed. Well, all science is influenced by the scientists sho, by definition, are influenced by money and politics.

Manuel 8:00 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
What an odd fellow.

Johnson 7:18 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
He’s just copy and pasting things he doesn’t understand as usual

joyo 2:10 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
Is Braindead writing a novel?

Capitol Man 1:48 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
More bullshit twitchy?

BRANDED 1:09 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
The Collins and Fauci Attack on Traditional Public Health

By Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff January 2, 2022 Law, Public Health 7 minute read
On Oct. 4, 2020, with Prof. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). Our purpose was to express our grave concerns over the inadequate protection of the vulnerable and the devastating harms of the lockdown pandemic policy adopted by much of the world; We proposed an alternative strategy of focused protection.

The key scientific fact on which the GBD was based—a more than thousand-fold higher risk of death for the old compared to the young—meant that better protection of the old would minimize COVID deaths. At the same time, opening schools and lifting lockdowns would reduce the collateral harm to the rest of the population.

The Declaration received enormous support, ultimately attracting signatures from over 50,000 scientists and medical professionals and over 800,000 members of the public. Our hope in writing was two-fold. First, we wanted to help the public understand that—contrary to the prevailing narrative—there was no scientific consensus in favor of lockdown. In this, we succeeded.

Second, we wanted to spur a discussion among public health scientists about how to better protect the vulnerable, both those living in nursing homes (where ~40 percent of all COVID deaths have occurred) and those living in the community. We provided specific proposals for focused protection in the GBD and supporting documents to spur the discussion. Though some in public health did engage civilly in productive discussions with us, in this aim we had limited success.

Unbeknownst to us, our call for a more focused pandemic strategy posed a political problem for Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The former is a geneticist who, until last week, was the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH); the latter is an immunologist who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). They are the biggest funders of medical and infectious disease research worldwide.

Collins and Fauci played critical roles in designing and advocating for the pandemic lockdown strategy adopted by the United States and many other countries. In emails written four days after the Great Barrington Declaration and disclosed recently after a FOIA request, it was revealed that the two conspired to undermine the Declaration. Rather than engaging in scientific discourse, they authorized “a quick and devastating published takedown” of this proposal, which they characterized as by “three fringe epidemiologists” from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.

Across the pond, they were joined by their close colleague, Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest non-governmental funders of medical research. He worked with Dominic Cummings, the political strategist of UK prime minister Boris Johnson. Together, they orchestrated “an aggressive press campaign against those behind the Great Barrington Declaration and others opposed to blanket COVID-19 restrictions.”

Ignoring the call for focused protection of the vulnerable, Collins and Fauci purposely mischaracterized the GBDl as a “let-it-rip” “herd immunity strategy,” even though focused protection is the very opposite of a let-it-rip strategy. It is more appropriate to call the lockdown strategy that has been followed a “let-it-rip” strategy. Without focused protection, every age group will eventually be exposed in equal proportion, albeit at a prolonged “let-it-drip” pace compared to a do-nothing strategy.

When journalists started asking us why we wanted to “let the virus rip,” we were puzzled. Those words are not in the GBD, and they are contrary to the central idea of focused protection. It is unclear whether Collins and Fauci ever read the GBD, whether they deliberately mischaracterized it, or whether their understanding of epidemiology and public health is more limited than we had thought. In any case, it was a lie.

We were also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD as a “herd immunity strategy.” Herd immunity is a scientifically proven phenomenon, as fundamental in infectious disease epidemiology as gravity is in physics. Every COVID strategy leads to herd immunity, and the pandemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity through either COVID-recovery or a vaccine. It makes as much sense to claim that an epidemiologist is advocating for a “herd immunity strategy” as it does to claim that a pilot is advocating a “gravity strategy” when landing an airplane. The issue is how to land the plane safely, and whatever strategy the pilot uses, gravity ensures that the plane will eventually return to earth.

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-collins-and-fauci-attack-on-traditional-public-health/

BRANDED 12:08 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
Just as well we

“ followed the science”

BRANDED 12:08 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
And this is a very interesting response "Amen. As a scientist in an unrelated field, I can only look on in astonishment at what passes for scientific discourse related to COVID: hostility, ad hominem, straw manning, false pretenses of consensus, marginalizing dissent and scrutiny. These are gross abuses of public trust."

BRANDED 12:05 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1486769025904349190.html

BRANDED 12:04 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
As someone registered Democrat 9 months before I was born and a lifelong scientist, son of a scientist mom...

I've seen scientists oversimplifying and demonizing competing views. This culture of unscientific hostility started at the top, the heads of top fed funding institutions
COVID has radically altered my view of academic science. The institution I was practically born into and believed worth saving now seems irrevocably compromised.

The heads of health science funding suppressed research to support policies that caused 20 million people to starve.

This propaganda campaign - and it is exactly that - deliberately constructed the misinfo oversimplifications @DrJBhattacharya is pointing out.

"Let 'er rip", "eugenics", "sacrificing grandma for the economy" - these slogans are unscientific straw men that scientists engineered.
That these slogans were deliberately designed as a "devastating take-down" of competing scientific worldviews, and that these takedowns were enabled by the unique power held by heads of federal funding institutions, undermined science and our federal funding institutions.

Simply put:

The pandemic burden was overestimated. People like me with more accurate estimates of burden were ostracized in the field by slogans engineered at NIH, NIAID, and CDC.

Overestimates of burden, duration came from folk consulting PFE/MRNA

Our federal institutions, our national mainstream media, credentialism and the richest private universities' names were all weaponized towards anticompetitive scientific practices that undermined and implicates science, scientists, and our entire academic + media ecosystem.

The most discouraging thing, to me, is that by simply finding the inconvenient truth that pandemic burden is lower, and by trying to share my work, I burnt my academic bridges and left American academic science. Where would I go for funding? Fauci's NIAID? Walensky's CDC?

Scientists' collective failure to tame their online mob mentality, their failure to protect young scientists & open-mindedly consider competing views, damns our entire public scientific enterprise.

I'm now unconvinced these institutions are capable of internal reform.

I see these institutions as unlikely to reform because scientists with undeserved power leading them stifle competition.

Unelected heads of agencies underserved our democratic deliberations by killing scientific debate with hostile slogans, a false-consensus, and abuse of power.

I quit academic science *because* of the politics of COVID, the culture of hostility, that started at the top brass of US medical funding agencies who overstepped their authority, powerful professors who overexploited their fame to monopolize public deliberations, and more.

These folk engineered a propaganda campaign and suppression of dissent in the service of policies that are documented to have caused unprecedented global collateral damage & displacement of harm from the old + rich to the young + poor.

Unelected bureaucrats stifled science with a culture of hostility, manufactured belief in a false-consensus, fanned the flames of fear, and undermined American deliberative processes of the legislative branch.

As a consequence, 20 million poor people in Africa + Asia starved.

100 million kids were thrown into multidimensional poverty. Tens of millions of kids are missing from schools. Child mental health is in crisis, deaths of despair rose. Test scores showed the largest & most inequitable drop in the history of test scores.

This collateral damage might be more tolerable were it the result of fair competition of ideas and a faithful, unbiased presentation of science.

But the competition was unfair, the presentation of science was biased & unfaithful, and the collateral damage is thus unacceptable.

These people starved, these kids are in poverty, my own friends commit suicide, and an entire world of victims of our pandemic policies suffered at the hands of federal science officials who abused their power, their fame, their authority, their credentials.

People died as a result of policies that were conceived by an illegitimate deliberative process, a process misled by the scientists whose job was to fund science and possibly serve as unbiased consultants.

The poor coverage of the collateral damage further serves those in power.

I'm not outraged, I'm heartbroken. I lost my career in academia, my letters of recommendation, and my entire vision of how my life would unfold as a professor. I lost all that because I kept an open mind & discovered an inconvenient truth that undermined the false consensus.

But ultimately, it's not about me. It's about science and its ability to inform policy. It's about the millions worldwide hungry, impoverished, deprived of education, depressed or suicidal, and more.

The weaponization of scientific institutions hurt people in the 21st century.

BRANDED 12:04 Sat Jan 29
Re: This coronavirus in China
The scientific community is utterly fucked

riosleftsock 11:54 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
Hammer and Pickle 2:30 Fri Jan 28

I know its wrong, but I actually laughed up my un-vaccinated lung reading that.

*inserts "if only he'd been vaccinated" meme*

Any Old Iron 11:25 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
joyo 4:05 Fri Jan 28
So now the pandemic is coming to an end,and life getting back to normal the anti vax loons are now wetting their knickers over fucking masks!Who cares who wears them or not!

When are fuckwits like you going to understand that being anti-mask soes not make you an anti-vaxxer.

The more people that continue wearing masks when it's not necessary only increase the chances of it becoming normalised in the long term.

If you think that's ok then you have to be one stupid cunt.

joyo 7:09 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
That's not unusual

joe royal 7:07 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
Bloke in the pub had a Tom Jones mask on.

joyo 6:32 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
When l was in the pub last night l saw someone wearing a Gloria Gaynor mask....at first l was afraid

factory seconds 5:38 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
i can tell if someone is ANTI VAX by how much social responsibility they show when following the arrows on the floor of the pub.

joyo 4:30 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
Saw a priest wearing a mask this morning and he threw some holy water at me,was a bit odd,but l think it was a blessing
in disguise.

Lee Trundle 4:28 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
I bought a SHARK the other day, SoH.

It's better than a Dyson, I'm finding.

Side of Ham 4:25 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
master, I bet none of you have got one and you've all bought a dyson.......flash cunts......

Lee Trundle 4:22 Fri Jan 28
Re: This coronavirus in China
joyo is either a complete idiot for constantly repeating that term, or just choosing to ignore what an anti vax person actually is for the LAUGHS.

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: