All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

GT89

The Nal wrote: »

This has nothing to do with RTE or Jedward. You were asked what Dave Cullens qualifications are that make him an expert.

You're the one who brought him up.

So, why does he qualify to speak about this stuff?

He doesn't have qualification my point is that Jedward and whole host of other celebrities have come out in support of covid 19 prevention measures despite having no medical qualifications either. If Jedward are entitled to their opinion then so is Dave Cullen.

EyesClosed

GT89 wrote: »

He doesn't have qualification my point is that Jedward and whole host of other celebrities have come out in support of covid 19 prevention measures despite having no medical qualifications either. If Jedward are entitled to their opinion then so is Dave Cullen.

And he has his opinion... Sure you can watch it there's a link in this very thread to it.
But he's a known liar... Who has had zero predictions come true.
What's your point?

If it's that dave cullen should be given air time on rte then no he shouldn't... He has zero evidence and has been proven a liar. Jedward are at least following advice from credited people... And no I wouldn't take any advice from them either...but I will take advice from peer reviewed scientists.

GT89

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You’re complaining because they have honest coverage? You’d be complaining if their coverage was dishonest. You can’t have it both ways.

Its not really honest or dishonest coverage. It's an interview. My point is we are only getting one side of the argument.

EyesClosed

GT89 wrote: »

Its not really honest or dishonest coverage. It's an interview. My point is we are only getting one side of the argument.

No we are not. The other side have no evidence... And they have had their say and been told no it's nonsense. For example gemma odothery was in court fighting covid laws... She was given the time to provide a case... She couldn't and lost. So it's not one sided... Its evidence and fact vs someone saying something based in nothing.. Who still got their opinion heard.

GT89

EyesClosed wrote: »

And he has his opinion... Sure you can watch it there's a link in this very thread to it.
But he's a known liar... Who has had zero predictions come true.
What's your point?

If it's that dave cullen should be given air time on rte then no he shouldn't... He has zero evidence and has been proven a liar. Jedward are at least following advice from credited people... And no I wouldn't take any advice from them either...but I will take advice from peer reviewed scientists.

I can see why they wouldn't give Dave Cullen in specific air time as he is just a randomer from the Internet whereas Jedward are celebrities all be it very minor. But there are also celebrities who are against lockdowns and masks too so maybe we could get them on for a debate.

I was looking at late late show clips from years ago with Gay Byrne and on it there used to be debates for some reason that's stopped and now it's just for interviews. So maybe they could a pro lockdown celebrities like Jedward versus say for example Right Said Fred.

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

Its not really honest or dishonest coverage. It's an interview. My point is we are only getting one side of the argument.

Dave Cullen isn't the 'other side'. The other side are other peer reviewed and respected scientists. The other side are not con artists and mental patients.

Fyi Dolores has been pretty much kicked out of her professorship for being a looper. She no longer teaches and the uni are looking into sacking her. Also fyi, she is not qualified and has no experience in virology, her peers, who are, have said she is flat out wrong.




Do you just blindly believe any nutjob as long as they are anti science?

GT89

runawaybishop wrote: »

Dave Cullen isn't the 'other side'. The other side are other peer reviewed and respected scientists. The other side are not con artists and mental patients.

Fyi Dolores has been pretty much kicked out of her professorship for being a looper. She no longer teaches and the uni are looking into sacking her. Also fyi, she is not qualified and has no experience in virology, her peers, who are, have said she is flat out wrong.




Do you just blindly believe any nutjob as long as they are anti science?

Are just going around circles here. As I've said Jedward are not scientists but yet they have spoken about Covid and gotten media coverage. D

EyesClosed

GT89 wrote: »

I can see why they wouldn't give Dave Cullen in specific air time as he is just a randomer from the Internet whereas Jedward are celebrities all be it very minor. But there are also celebrities who are against lockdowns and masks too so maybe we could get them on for a debate.

I was looking at late late show clips from years ago with Gay Byrne and on it there used to be debates for some reason that's stopped and now it's just for interviews. So maybe they could a pro lockdown celebrities like Jedward versus say for example Right Said Fred.

But they do give people air time... You have totally skipped my point on Gemma and her court case... Why?

Also you admit dave is a randomer from the Internet... Then why listen to him?

robinph

GT89 wrote: »

Are just going around circles here. As I've said Jedward are not scientists but yet they have spoken about Covid and gotten media coverage. D

They are not scientists, but what they say is not disputed by scientists except maybe on issues regarding hairstyles.
Don't know the other guy, but presumably he's saying things which are supported by science as well if you think he should get air time for his views? Or maybe not.

If Jedward saying something, backed by science, gets people who otherwise would be uninterested in listening to the statement from a dull professor of dullness to pay attention to the message then they are doing their job.

Is the other guy saying anything backed by anyone else of note?

runawaybishop

patnor1011 wrote: »

In case you do have reading comprehension problems go back and read my post again.
I have said that "For anyone under 50 with reasonably good health it is unnecessary and due to possible side effects it is more dangerous than covid itself."

I have also said "AZ stopped again, J&J stopped and nobody knows yet what mRNA will do in future as it is quite new gene therapy with zero long term testing and data."

How did you extrapolate that I have said it changes or modify your genes is a mystery to me.
Try to read slowly.

You claimed it is experimental gene therapy. Gene therapy modifies your genes. So my reading comprehension is fine, it appears you have problems though. Where is your evidence that this 'experimental' 30 year old tech will modify your genes?

How is a vaccine worse than covid? Again, you stated this, why do you believe this and where is your proof? Given vaccines tend to mimic the bodies response to the actual disease your logic is off. Furthermore, if the vaccine/s for any age group presented more risk then they would not be administered to that age group, or at all. So again, where is your proof.

Dohnjoe

GT89 wrote: »

Are just going around circles here. As I've said Jedward are not scientists but yet they have spoken about Covid and gotten media coverage. D

Yes and a government minister is not a scientist, but they can and do speak on behalf of scientists and medical science

If someone is echoing scientific facts, that's fine

If someone from social media is attacking facts and replacing them with their own uninformed opinion, that's not fine.

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

Are just going around circles here. As I've said Jedward are not scientists but yet they have spoken about Covid and gotten media coverage. D

Yeah, so what? So you actually think that's an argument? They are just parroting established medical advice.

Dave Cullen is making stuff up. To make money from gullible fools.

Fighting Tao

GT89 wrote: »

Its not really honest or dishonest coverage. It's an interview. My point is we are only getting one side of the argument.

Why should the side that lies and provides misinformation get airtime?

GT89

EyesClosed wrote: »

But they do give people air time... You have totally skipped my point on Gemma and her court case... Why?

Also you admit dave is a randomer from the Internet... Then why listen to him?

I never said I listen to him. I didn't see your post about Gemma. Gemma is a bit of a bad example as most think she's nuts so they could have someone less nuts and more mainstream like Zuby, Van Morrison or Jim Corr on too.

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

I never said I listen to him. I didn't see your post about Gemma. Gemma is a bit of a bad example as most think she's nuts so they could have someone less nuts and more mainstream like Zuby, Van Morrison or Jim Corr on too.

Why in earth would a virologist and Jim Corr debating on the efficieny and safety of a vaccine be a good debate? That's just daft. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, you bring a virologist to debate a virologist.

Fighting Tao

GT89 wrote: »

I never said I listen to him. I didn't see your post about Gemma. Gemma is a bit of a bad example as most think she's nuts so they could have someone less nuts and more mainstream like Zuby, Van Morrison or Jim Corr on too.

Jim Corr???? I thought he was nuts, but you must be nuttier for suggesting him. He is a basket case of lies and dishonesty. If you want him to speak for the misinformation you are seeking, then you really should detox yourself from the internet.

EyesClosed

GT89 wrote: »

I never said I listen to him. I didn't see your post about Gemma. Gemma is a bit of a bad example as most think she's nuts so they could have someone less nuts and more mainstream like Zuby, Van Morrison or Jim Corr on too.

Why should Jim Corr be debating about covid?
Also jedward have not been on debating about science facts either...so you are not comparing like for like.
Jim Corr bases his opinions on bull**** he reads online... Zero evidence again...
Also how is Jim Corr less crazy than Gemma??

PintOfView

PintOfView wrote: »

If you are 25 and you get covid your risk is also very low.
However as you get into your 50,s and 60's, and 70's the risk from the virus is vastly more than from the vaccine.

patnor1011 wrote: »

That is because we tend to pick up other ailments in many cases multiple of them which make us more fragile to not just covid but pretty much everything else too. People need to stop thinking that covid is the only thing with potential of killing us.

The question is: if the risk from the virus, is greater than the risk from the vaccine (regardless of the health of the individual)
You're explaining why older people are at more risk from Covid.
But their risk from the vaccine is much less.
So if you say it's better to let everyone get covid, then older people are more at risk from that strategy, than from the vaccine?

PintOfView wrote: »

If noone gets vaccinated then most will likely get the virus at some stage, as we can't lockdown for ever.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Sure. With current estimate that there is about 3x more of undetected cases we are pretty close to that scenario anyway. You forget that as you recover from covid, many times without even knowing you had one it is as good as getting vaccine if not actually better.

If you are saying we're pretty close to everyone having had the virus, have you any supporting info?
If you were able to demonstrate that it would be a game changer.

However even Sweden, with much less restrictions, is experiencing a big surge in cases and ICU occupancy at the moment.
Wouldn't a higher percentage of Swedes have gotten Covid already, so if they were close to 70% they shouldn't be experiencing such a fast increase at the moment?

PintOfView wrote: »

You are then at a far higher risk of blood clots, and other issues, and also death, when you do get covid, than from the vaccine.
(and this is known from the past year's experience)

patnor1011 wrote: »

Only if you are in the top of the vulnerable cohort of people. Those who do have several others life threatening health problems. That is also not everyone with advanced age as there are a lot of very old people who managed to survive covid infection without any complications or lasting damage.

Yes, most people, even the very old, will survive.
However if it kills 15% of 85yr olds, and 5% of 75 yr olds, and 1.4% of 65 yr olds, and 0.4% of 55 yr olds,
that still adds up to a lot of people who will die before their time if they get covid.
There appears to be much less risk from the vaccine, and it effectively eliminates the risk from Covid.

PintOfView wrote: »

So that's the choice that faces us all!!
Personally it looks to me like the vaccine is obviously the better choice (vs everyone getting covid)

patnor1011 wrote: »

Here is where you are mistaken. Everyone will get covid at some stage.
Vaccinated people do not have any guarantee they will become immune to infection
and with virus mutating there is no chance you or anyone else will be able to escape it forever.
It will stay with us like flu or other corona viruses do. Or do you know someone who never got fluor cold in their life? I dont.

But even if most people will get Covid at some stage, if it's after being vaccinated then the risk is substantially reduced!
If there are mutations then I imagine the vaccine will be updated every year, just like the flu vaccine.
Do you think the flu vaccine works?

Timberrrrrrrr

EyesClosed wrote: »

Why should Jim Corr be debating about covid?
Also jedward have not been on debating about science facts either...so you are not comparing like for like.
Jim Corr bases his opinions on bull**** he reads online... Zero evidence again...
Also how is Jim Corr less crazy than Gemma??

They'll want the Tan Torino on the 6.1 news next giving his opinion :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

GT89 wrote: »

Jim Corr

Jesus christ, please tell us you aren't referring to Jim "Qanon, false flag truther, anti-vaxx, anti-flouride, banned from Youtube" Corr

Dr. Bre

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Jesus christ, please tell us you aren't referring to Jim "Qanon, false flag truther, anti-vaxx, anti-flouride, banned from Youtube" Corr

I would still like to go for a pint with Jim ! Be great fun

Professor Moriarty

Dr. Bre wrote: »

I would still like to go for a pint with Jim ! Be great fun

It would be like having a pint with a box of frogs.

silliussoddius

Dr. Bre wrote: »

I would still like to go for a pint with Jim ! Be great fun

I have a feeling he’d have the same answer for every topic. It would get tired pretty quick.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Jesus christ, please tell us you aren't referring to Jim "Qanon, false flag truther, anti-vaxx, anti-flouride, banned from Youtube" Corr

Actual, I think he'd be perfect to have on representing conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers.
He'd do way more good discrediting those views than any of us could.

GT89

I was listening to Jordan Peterson and he was saying that 1 in 10 people have an IQ of less than 83 so no wonder people are so happy to follow covid measures and not question them.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

I was listening to Jordan Peterson and he was saying that 1 in 10 people have an IQ of less than 83 so no wonder people are so happy to follow covid measures and not question them.

And Jordan Peterson is also a YouTube crank with no qualifications.

But it's weird cause we've been asking you guys questions constantly, yet you keeping ignoring them and running away.
And on top of that you guys have been caught out in lies and dishonest tactics.
And when those only serve to make you guys and your conspiracy theories look ridiculous, you throw dramatic strips and make declarations about never speaking to people again..

Why do you expect any reasonable person to be convinced by this kind of carry on?

Do you know what would be a step towards convincing people?
Answering simple questions directly, clearly and in full.

So let's try:
What measures do you believe are going to be permanent?
How would these measures benefit people behind a conspiracy to enforce these measures?

GT89

King Mob wrote: »

So let's try:
What measures do you believe are going to be permanent?
How would these measures benefit people behind a conspiracy to enforce these measures?

I wouldn't say they'll be permanent myself but rather thing like masks and social distancing are long term rather than permanent. In fact I would already say they have been quite long term. Permenant is very long time. course people on here have answered this question over and over again but you just happen to not like the answers you get either that or your showing your IQ level.

So just a recommendation for you next time you run a fever or have a bad cough that won't shift maybe consider an IQ test as opposed to a covid test.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

I wouldn't say they'll be permanent myself but rather thing like masks and social distancing are long term rather than permanent. In fact I would already say they have been quite long term. Permenant is very long time.

Ok. So the claim that the measures will be permanent is false.

You believe that masks and social distancing will be long term. Ok.
How long term?

Also could you answer the second part of the question?
Why will masks and social distancing be long term and how does this benefit those behind the conspiracy?

GT89 wrote: »

course people on here have answered this question over and over again but you just happen to not like the answers

But no, they haven't.
We get vague answers with no depth or support and then the claimer runs away before explaining further.

You are a perfect example.
I asked you a question with two parts. Yet despite the question being right there, you ignored the second part entirely.
Why did you do that? Please be honest.

GT89 wrote: »

So just a recommendation for you next time you run a fever or have a bad cough that won't shift maybe consider an IQ test as opposed to a covid test.

No need for these silly insults. It's only making you look ridiculous.
Doubly so given that this particular insult is based on something Jordan Peterson said...

ShatterAlan

I suppose the question that I have would be this, or rather these:

(a) Should you be forced to take a vaccine?


(a) (subsection (i)) Should you be punished for not taking a vaccine?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I suppose the question that I have would be this, or rather these:

(a) Should you be forced to take a vaccine?


(a) (subsection (i)) Should you be punished for not taking a vaccine?

No the question and topic of the thread is covid measures being permanent.
Which measures and why?

Conspiracy theorists have failed to address this point.

It's gotten to the point that you've abbandoned the conspiracy theory entirely.

Hence why all this deflection to anti vaccination propaganda.

And to demonstrate how to properly address points.
No people shouldn't be forced to get vaccines. No one is getting forced to get a vaccine. No one is being punished for not getting vaccines.
In all examples where vaccine passports are going to be used they also have other methods that don't require vaccines, such as providing a negative test or proof that you've had covid.

You guys have to speculate that the vaccine passports will become far more strict and restrictive than is being proposed. But all of that is just pure fantasy with no backing or evidence. And of you are pressed I imagine you guys will run away from difficult questions about these too.

This leads on to other questions for you guys to ignore:
Should people not get the vaccine because of uniformed, biased and false claims by randos on the internet?

Should people be allowed to make false and scarwmongering claims about vaccines on the internet?