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

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

Why does there need to be a conspiracy behind the restrictions, permanent or otherwise.
All the current restrictions are nothing to with COVID-19 and everything to do with control. So take your pick. Which one shall we debate?

Lol.
You're claiming that theres a secret plot to make restrictions (that you can't point out) permanent (for reasons you can't explain.)
But you're then saying that this isn't a conspiracy?

Are you claims that covid doesn't exist also part of this non conspiracy?
Your claims that the vaccine is dangerous and ineffective and being covered up by doctors also not a conspiracy?

Have you just abbandoned you claims of a depopulation plot entirely?

You don't seem to have a very coherent worldview...

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

I can't provide evidence of the radio interview. I remember it was a woman from either Nphet or HSE around two weeks ago.
I can't prove it so I guess I'm lying

You can't even tell us who it was?
Don't you remember?

If you can't remember who it was or who she worked for or when the interview was or what station...
Isn't it also possible that you misremembered what you heard?

Also, you originally claimed that doctors and experts were claiming all the time that the vaccine was 100% safe with no side effects.
Now you're down to one radio interview you barely remember and can't actually quote.

So yea, you were telling porkies...

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
You're claiming that theres a secret plot to make restrictions (that you can't point out) permanent (for reasons you can't explain.)
But you're then saying that this isn't a conspiracy?

Are you claims that covid doesn't exist also part of this non conspiracy?
Your claims that the vaccine is dangerous and ineffective and being covered up by doctors also not a conspiracy?

Have you just abbandoned you claims of a depopulation plot entirely?

You don't seem to have a very coherent worldview...

You sir have a habit of putting words in my mouth, so to speak. Where did I claim the vaccine is dangerous. I said 0.2% mortality rate isn't enough for me to roll my sleeve up for a vaccine that is unproven. But then some folk have had dangerous side effects. A man I know personally suffered a heart attack 2 hours after his second jab
Another fella I know had nothing but a sore arm. Who wants to convince the heart attack victim that the vaccine that nearly killed him isn't dangerous.
And yes I stand by my depopulation claim. 1000s of elderly, frail and dependent people have died. In other words, those that were a burden or cost to society.
If the vaccines are effective how are vaccinated people contracting Covid!!! Surely the point of a vaccine is to be immune

Grofus

Deja Boo wrote: »

Thank you for providing this graph, I was unaware of so many losses.... I am not here to argue ratios, but mourn those now gone and ask we be more careful of terms when discussing the seriousness of their private risk and sarifice.

Tell the "overwhelmingly safe" part to the parents of the 377 children who died. Their risk was not small nor "relative," it was very real and personal... and to the (possible) children of the 19,425 parents/aunts/uncles who are no longer here, or to the grandchildren and families of the 413,320 people missing from their lives.

I don't know about you, but a ghost town of 433, 132 people does not say "small risk, overwhelmingly safe" to me... Ask the families and friends of those in the ground, about any 'risk to benefit ratio' of those loved ones now in the ground.

More kids die from flu most years

Grofus

Here you go
https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/7/586
Just uk figures

robinph

Grofus wrote: »

Why does there need to be a conspiracy behind the restrictions, permanent or otherwise.

Great so no conspiracy then and any restrictions that have been brought in over the last year and a half are just to do with dealing with the ongoing pandemic.

Grofus wrote: »

All the current restrictions are nothing to with COVID-19 and everything to do with control. So take your pick. Which one shall we debate?

What, now the conspiracy is back again and it's nothing to do with a pandemic and is all about control. You can't manage to keep your story straight from one sentence to the next.

So, who is trying to control us and for what purpose? Is the restrictions on wearing mask controlling people in the same way as the rules about nightclubs being closed? Are those restrictions part of the same plan to control the population, and to what end is the mask/ nightclubs restrictions being brought in?

When mask requirements are dropped and people are back in nightclubs how will that affect this population control plan of yours?

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

You sir have a habit of putting words in my mouth,

But If I ask you to explain your belief or position you avoid and ignore.
If you don't want people to make assumptions about what you believe, maybe just state your beliefs rather than be vague and evasive.
Also, maybe don't contradict yourself in the next sentence.

Grofus wrote: »

so to speak. Where did I claim the vaccine is dangerous. I said 0.2% mortality rate isn't enough for me to roll my sleeve up for a vaccine that is unproven. But then some folk have had dangerous side effects. A man I know personally suffered a heart attack 2 hours after his second jab

So you're not saying the vaccine is dangerous, but it's dangerous?

Also, lol, another unverifable claim that you're oddly expecting people to just believe.

And what about all the 4 million people who died from covid? Would you like to convince them about your claim that covid isn't dangerous?

Grofus wrote: »

And yes I stand by my depopulation claim. 1000s of elderly, frail and dependent people have died. In other words, those that were a burden or cost to society.

Lol ok.
So the vaccine isn't dangerous, but it's part of a plot to kill 1000s of old people?

Grofus wrote: »

If the vaccines are effective how are vaccinated people contracting Covid!!! Surely the poi t of a vaccine is to be immune

Again, this is something an expert in pharma would know.

And again, like your previous lie, no one said that the vaccines were 100% effective at completely stopping infection by the virus.
They have been shown to be effective in reducing the rate of infection massively as well as reducing the chances of sereve cases of the virus. This in turn reduces the spread of the virus, which lowers it's chances of infection and mutation.

I assume you're going to claim you heard otherwise from some place you can't remember by a person you can't name in a place you can't point...

robinph

Grofus wrote: »

I can't provide evidence of the radio interview. I remember it was a woman from either Nphet or HSE around two weeks ago.
I can't prove it so I guess I'm lying

If they were saying something in their official capacity on a radio interview then there is likely some news article online covering that statement that you can find us.

King Mob

robinph wrote: »

If they were saying something in their official capacity on a radio interview then there is likely some news article online covering that statement that you can find us.

And most radio shows these days archive all their shows online, so it would be trivial to find and post and point to the time.

Or he could point to any of the other examples of experts or doctors claiming this since he claimed they do this all the time.

Yet, we're only going to hear excuses.

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

But If I ask you to explain your belief or position you avoid and ignore.
If you don't want people to make assumptions about what you believe, maybe just state your beliefs rather than be vague and evasive.
Also, maybe don't contradict yourself in the next sentence.


So you're not saying the vaccine is dangerous, but it's dangerous?

Also, lol, another unverifable claim that you're oddly expecting people to just believe.

And what about all the 4 million people who died from covid? Would you like to convince them about your claim that covid isn't dangerous?


Lol ok.
So the vaccine isn't dangerous, but it's part of a plot to kill 1000s of old people?


Again, this is something an expert in pharma would know.

And again, like your previous lie, no one said that the vaccines were 100% effective at completely stopping infection by the virus.
They have been shown to be effective in reducing the rate of infection massively as well as reducing the chances of sereve cases of the virus. This in turn reduces the spread of the virus, which lowers it's chances of infection and mutation.

I assume you're going to claim you heard otherwise from some place you can't remember by a person you can't name in a place you can't point...

I still don't see where I claimed the vaccine was dangerous. You claimed I said it was. The heart attack victim might think it is, given that it caused a heart attack though.
Just because I can't prove I heard " 100 % safe" on the radio doesn't make it a lie, just an unsubstantiated claim. However, I have heard it on more than one occasion.

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

And most radio shows these days archive all their shows online, so it would be trivial to find and post and point to the time.

Or he could point to any of the other examples of experts or doctors claiming this since he claimed they do this all the time.

Yet, we're only going to hear excuses.

Yet again putting words in my mouth.
Why don't show us all where I said Dr's say it all the time, prove your claim

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

I still don't see where I claimed the vaccine was dangerous. You claimed I said it was. The heart attack victim might think it is, given that it caused a heart attack though.

When you claim that the vaccine is being used as part of a plot to depopulate the world.

Grofus wrote: »

Just because I can't prove I heard " 100 % safe" on the radio doesn't make it a lie, just an unsubstantiated claim.

Cool. What's the difference between an unsubstantiated claim and a lie?

Grofus wrote: »

However, I have heard it on more than one occasion.

Cool. Where? When? By who?
Link to them and them and quote them please.

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

And most radio shows these days archive all their shows online, so it would be trivial to find and post and point to the time.

Or he could point to any of the other examples of experts or doctors claiming this since he claimed they do this all the time.

Yet, we're only going to hear excuses.

Yep, your right. The excuse being i ain't trawling through hours of radio news bulletins to prove what is a trivial point

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

When you claim that the vaccine is being used as part of a plot to depopulate the world.


Cool. What's the difference between an unsubstantiated claim and a lie?


Cool. Where? When? By who?
Link to them and them and quote them please.

Cool. What's the difference between an unsubstantiated claim and a lie? The content chap

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

Yet again putting words in my mouth.
Why don't show us all where I said Dr's say it all the time, prove your claim

Here you go:

Grofus wrote: »

The point is there is more than enough doubt about the vaccines safety yet media, government agencies etc are continually saying they're 100% when they clearly are not.

Grofus wrote: »

I've heard several reports on the radio where so called experts have stated" the vaccines are 100% safe" so am I lying or are they.

Grofus wrote: »

Yep, your right. The excuse being i ain't trawling through hours of radio news bulletins to prove what is a trivial point

Yes. You can't provide the quote because it doesn't exist.
You can't point to any other quotes that you claim were "continuous" because they don't exist.

Grofus wrote: »

Cool. What's the difference between an unsubstantiated claim and a lie? The content chap

And when the content isn't actually true? What's the difference?

Why aren't you able to substantiate the claim?

Grofus

The point is there is more than enough doubt about the vaccines safety yet media, government agencies etc are continually saying they're 100% when they clearly are not

Perhaps you point the word Dr's in that statement

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

The point is there is more than enough doubt about the vaccines safety yet media, government agencies etc are continually saying they're 100% when they clearly are not

Perhaps you point the word Dr's in that statement

Lol Pedantry. Doctors are experts.

Are you saying that all doctors are excluded from this claim? But all other experts who aren't doctors and don't have Ph.Ds are claiming this?
Who are these experts you are referring to if they aren't doctors?

Please provide an example of anyone from government agencies, experts or otherwsie claiming the vaccine is 100% safe?

You are claiming this is happening continually, but you can't provide any examples?
Only examples from radio shows you don't remember?

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

Lol Pedantry. Doctors are experts.

Are you saying that all doctors are excluded from this claim? But all other experts who aren't doctors and don't have Ph.Ds are claiming this?

Please provide an example of anyone from government agencies, experts or otherwsie claiming the vaccine is 100% safe?

You are claiming this is happening continually, but you can't provide any examples?
Only examples from radio shows you don't remember?

Oh so now I'm pedantic too. Don't like being wrong do you. Yet when I make a slightly differing statement I'm lying, making it up or abandoning my beliefs.
Thats known as hypocrisy

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

Oh so now I'm pedantic too. Don't like being wrong do you. Yet when I make a slightly differing statement I'm lying, making it up or abandoning my beliefs.
Thats known as hypocrisy

OK. Sure. You didn't say doctors. You meant other experts who aren't doctors.

Can you provide one example of them claiming the vaccines are 100% safe?
You say that this is happening constantly, so it should be easy for you to point to.

Link and quote please.

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

OK. Sure. You didn't say doctors. You meant other experts who aren't doctors.

Can you provide one example of them claiming the vaccines are 100% safe?
You say that this is happening constantly, so it should be easy for you to point to.

Link and quote please.

OK I'll take that as an apology. Accepted
Further to that, for clarity, I didn't say experts persay, but used the phrase " so called experts". At least in the first instance
I was inferring that what was being said held no credence, at least with me. I will concede I perhaps used the word " continually " loosely but stand by my claim of hearing it more than once.
I will try and find the quote to which I refer. Its out there somewhere.

Grofus

Some light reading
Whilst I accept this is not proof of anything, it raises questions.
Eugenics is just a posh term for population control
https://tottnews.com/2020/04/09/gates-family-eugenics-covid-19/

Grofus

Close but no cigar

https://news.sky.com/story/pfizer-vaccine-safe-and-100-effective-in-children-as-young-as-12-12261697

Interesting though how has been coupled to 100% with inverted commas

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

OK I'll take that as an apology. Accepted
Further to that, for clarity, I didn't say experts persay, but used the phrase " so called experts". At least in the first instance
I was inferring that what was being said held no credence, at least with me. I will concede I perhaps used the word " continually " loosely but stand by my claim of hearing it more than once.
I will try and find the quote to which I refer. Its out there somewhere.

Lol. Lookit them goalposts go.
You can't provide any quote from this "continual claim" because no one claims it.

Likewise your similar lie that people were laiming it 100% stops infections.

So could you maybe now explain what measures are going to be permanent?

Grofus

Anyone, in my opinion, that allows an unproven toxic cocktail into their arm to protect them from a 0.2 chance of death, is either stupid, uninformed or easily lead.
Which one are you?

King Mob

No you weren't.

Again you claimed this was being said constantly. Yet you can't provide a single example.

Because your claim isn't true.

You are now using feigned offense to avoid the other points you've left hanging. For example you can't explain what measures are going to be permanent. You have also once again abandoned your bizarre claims about a depopulation agenda using a vaccine that you are now saying isn't dangerous.

Again you're demonstrating that conspiracy theorists like yourself aren't able to provide any kind of consistent or rational argument.

King Mob

Grofus wrote: »

Anyone, in my opinion, that allows an unproven toxic cocktail into their arm to protect them from a 0.2 chance of death, is either stupid, uninformed or easily lead.
Which one are you?

But again you're lying.
The vaccines have under gone clinical trials and they have been show to be far safer than the virus.

You were asked if these trials were false. But you ignored the question.

What you are doing however is telling people to ignore doctors and make a health care decision based on what a conspiracy theorist tells them on the internet...

Grofus

King Mob wrote: »

No you weren't.

Again you claimed this was being said constantly. Yet you can't provide a single example.

Because your claim isn't true.

You are now using feigned offense to avoid the other points you've left hanging. For example you can't explain what measures are going to be permanent. You have also once again abandoned your bizarre claims about a depopulation agenda using a vaccine that you are now saying isn't dangerous.

Again you're demonstrating that conspiracy theorists like yourself aren't able to provide any kind of consistent or rational argument.

What i claimed was " i heard it said" on a radio news bulletin so I was looking for the podcast. A few interesting, in my opinion, headlines came up and I posted them.
You then accuse me of moving the goalposts whilst I was still searching.
I've called a hypocrite already, now you can add conceited, antagonistic and prick to it. Do one

For the record, it wasn't feigned, I actually typed the word. The website changed it to asterisks

Grofus

Happy
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/31/982983455/pfizer-says-covid-19-vaccine-shows-100-efficacy-in-adolescents

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/covid-vaccine-moderna-says-shot-is-100percent-effective-in-teens-plans-to-seek-fda-ok-in-june.html

NaFirinne

While we are all talking about the Safety of AstraZeneca there this article on "Norway Says Risk Of Dying From AstraZeneca CoviShield Vaccine Higher Than Of COVID-19"


https://greatgameindia.com/norway-risk-dying-astrazeneca-covishield/

wow, who knew.

Grofus

NaFirinne wrote: »

While we are all talking about the Safety of AstraZeneca there this article on "Norway Says Risk Of Dying From AstraZeneca CoviShield Vaccine Higher Than Of COVID-19"


https://greatgameindia.com/norway-risk-dying-astrazeneca-covishield/

wow, who knew.

More to follow, just my opinion.