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

ShatterAlan

aido79 wrote: »

I'm not questioning your IQ but funerals are generally held inside a church and the burial is held outdoors so the restriction is on the number of people in the church and not at the burial.

You might want to educate yourself on the difference.

I see.


I was unaware that only 10 were allowed inside the church whereas more were allowed to attend the burial.


If that is the case then can you explain why only 10 would be allowed at an inside church service for a funeral yet 30 can attend and inside wedding?

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Facts aren't needed when they aren't required. What is wrong with you?


The premise of Quiner's post was to question why something should believed today because of majority opinion/consensus when at another time majority opinion/consensus was wrong.


Why is that so cryptic for you? What don't you get about the question?

And If you'd take the time to read any of my replies. I have stated that yes, they can be wrong, but current evidence shows they are not.

And I will ask again... Can you show me evidence that points to your opinions or Quiners being correct, if so please share

joe40

I'm not following the thread and to be honest don't have much interest in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I just want to point out the boiling frog story is a myth. When the water is heated the frog will jump out.

The Raging Bile Duct

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Facts aren't needed when they aren't required. What is wrong with you?


The premise of Quiner's post was to question why something should believed today because of majority opinion/consensus when at another time majority opinion/consensus was wrong.


Why is that so cryptic for you? What don't you get about the question?

So, in the vast, vast majority of times that there is majority consensus on healthcare issues that is proven to be the best course of action - which is almost always evolving as our knowledge of these issues is expanded through further research and analysis - we should not trust them because of the couple of instances that it was later proven to be wrong?

The Raging Bile Duct

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not following the thread and to be honest don't have much interest in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I just want to point out the boiling frog story is a myth. When the water is heated the frog will jump out.

But did the frog jump on the advice of NPHET?

EyesClosed

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

So, in the vast, vast majority of times that there is majority consensus on healthcare issues that is proven to be the best course of action - which is almost always evolving as our knowledge of these issues is expanded through further research and analysis - we should not trust them because of the couple of instances that it was later proven to be wrong?

yeap, this conspiracy has basically become all scientists are wrong, cept the few who agree with a vague conspiracy.

ShatterAlan

EyesClosed wrote: »

This poster has shown to read twitter accept it as fact and get worried by it. By all means check twitter, but make sure you check the sources yourself. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet... That's Internet rule one

That's rule 1 for any conveyance of information. You're stating the obvious.


The "don't use Twitter for research" canard is cretinous and meaningless. It's akin to saying "Don't believe what you read in any text that was produced via Gutenberg's printing press, the quill and a sheet of foolscap are more trustworthy."

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That's rule 1 for any conveyance of information. You're stating the obvious.


The "don't use Twitter for research" canard is cretinous and meaningless. It's akin to saying "Don't believe what you read in any text that was produced via Gutenberg's printing press, the quill and a sheet of foolscap are more trustworthy."

I'd like to think I was stating the obvious. But you ignored the import part, the other poster Quiner, believes everything he/she reads on Twitter.

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I see.


I was unaware that only 10 were allowed inside the church whereas more were allowed to attend the burial.


If that is the case then can you explain why only 10 would be allowed at an inside church service for a funeral yet 30 can attend and inside wedding?

The numbers are after January 3rd drop to 6 people at a wedding so I would think it is as a courtesy to people who already had weddings organised and would have difficulty in changing their plans although most venues will be closed from Christmas eve so I'm not sure what difference it makes and I don't see how it can be related to a world wide conspiracy so I don't see any reason to discuss it further on this thread.

Cluedo Monopoly

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not following the thread and to be honest don't have much interest in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I just want to point out the boiling frog story is a myth. When the water is heated the frog will jump out.

Well it's not a myth that if you catch a frog and stick a hook in it's arse and let it out swimming on Lough Ree, you will catch a pike. Fact.

ShatterAlan

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Smoking isn't really a better example. When the links to lung disease were starting to be properly established by the scientific community, The six biggest tobacco manufacturers in the US got together to create a successful campaign of disinformation.

It's a perfect example.


The fact that tobacco manufacturers embarked on a campaign of disinformation is beside the point.


DOCTORS, who ought to use their expertise, bereft of corporate pressure, should know what is good for the body and what is harmful. They, in their majority, claimed that tobacco was harmless.


Up until the 1950s / 1960s doctors were denying the harmful effects of tobacco despite the fact that it was around in this neck of the woods since Walter Raleigh brought it back from his travels centuries earlier.


People working in match factories developed "phossy jaw" whereby their face essentially rotted away. Nobody who didn't work in these factories developed it and the correlation was quite simple. You work with phosphorous expect to look like the Elephant Man in a couple of years.

People smoking tobacco have been spluttering and dying from lung problems for decades going back to the 17th century and yet doctors still maintained there was no problem.

ShatterAlan

EyesClosed wrote: »

Do you understand how science works?
As of the evidence and data as it currently stands, they are right.
The data may change when knew facts come to light, it may not. Its not black and white, I think you know this though.

Yes I DO understand science. A lot more than you do.


I am an engineer and a mathematician so I have a lifetime of dealing with facts and leaving conjecture as something that is not "right" or "wrong" but simply unproven.


If data can change, as you stated, then nothing is right. It can simply be classified as "best guess under current conditions".

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I am an engineer and a mathematician so I have a lifetime of dealing with facts and leaving conjecture as something that is not "right" or "wrong" but simply unproven.
".

Yet you seem to buy into all manner of obviously false conspiracy theories.

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Yes I DO understand science. A lot more than you do.


I am an engineer and a mathematician so I have a lifetime of dealing with facts and leaving conjecture as something that is not "right" or "wrong" but simply unproven.


If data can change, as you stated, then nothing is right. It can simply be classified as "best guess under current conditions".

As an engineer you should know data changes. And the current best is only that, current best. But you seem to think in black and whites, are you a computer? Do you only think in binary... Why?

ShatterAlan

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

That wasn't the majority consensus in this country at the time and you know it - people were appalled by the outcome and it led to the revoking of the 8th amendment. The problem was not with the doctors in that case but the rights of the unborn being enshrined in the constitution which completely hamstrung the medical profession in cases like that.

I agree that the draconian law was in play and I don't blame any doctors, although many throughout history have gone against the law with the courage of their own convictions when they deemed their intervention was the right thing to do.


I'm just surprised that no doctors stepped up and did what needed to be done to save the woman, and the "law" be damned.


It's against the law to assault somebody, yet you, I, or most people would slap someone in the face or even punch thenm to snap them out of a panic if you were trying to save them from drowning or if they were fitting and you needed to wedge their mouth open and shove a spoon in to stop them swallowing their tongue.

Quiner

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

So, in the vast, vast majority of times that there is majority consensus on healthcare issues that is proven to be the best course of action - which is almost always evolving as our knowledge of these issues is expanded through further research and analysis - we should not trust them because of the couple of instances that it was later proven to be wrong?

No, but shouldn't people who believe the majority because it's the majority should question things and be open to other opinions? Not dismiss those opinions because they do not come from the majority, or mock people who hold them and claim they have an agenda or are trying to sell a book.

Quiner

EyesClosed wrote: »

And If you'd take the time to read any of my replies. I have stated that yes, they can be wrong, but current evidence shows they are not.

And I will ask again... Can you show me evidence that points to your opinions or Quiners being correct, if so please share

But the current evidence shows that their policies / recommendations have had catastrophic consequences, from cancer deaths (see the cases of the two young mothers in England, one died and the other poor woman has terminal cancer at 23 because of missed vital appointments due to the covid obsession), depression, wrecked mental health, massive unemployment, wrecked livelihoods, the destruction of small and medium sized businesses.

It's like the mask thing. The real world evidence shows their useless (Peru, Spain, Italy, France, the US, the Philippines), but we keep hearing about how effective and essential they are. Another study out today showing that they are ineffective.

An article about the study: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9080597/Cloth-masks-NOT-stop-spread-COVID-19-without-social-distancing.html

EyesClosed

Quiner wrote: »

But the current evidence shows that their policies / recommendations have had catastrophic consequences, from cancer deaths (see the cases of the two young mothers in England, one died and the other poor woman has terminal cancer at 24 because of missed vital appointments due to the covid obsession), depression, wrecked mental health, massive unemployment, wrecked livelihoods, the destruction of small and medium sized businesses.

It's like the mask thing. The real world evidence shows their useless (Peru, Spain, Italy, France, the US, the Philippines), but we keep hearing about how effective and essential they are. Another study out today showing that they are ineffective.

Any links to those cases?

Quiner

EyesClosed wrote: »

Any links to those cases?

Sure:

The young mother who has 6 months to live: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8989161/amp/Mum-23-three-appointments-cancelled-Covid-told-ZOOM-cancer.html

I'll have a look for a source for the other young woman. She was 31. I read the article in the paper, but I'll try to find it online.

Quiner

The poor woman who died at 31: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8848991/amp/Dead-31-chemo-paused-Covid-Cancer-sufferers-fighting-lives.html

It's so sad what's happening.

ShatterAlan

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

There not clear examples though, that's why I raised my points with them. I don't understand how you think I'm tying myself in knots.

What's not clear? What don't you understand?


The argument was that because the majority agree on something today and should be respected come hell or high water doesn't hold since the majority in the past held a stance/view/opinion and that stance/view/opinion proved to be wrong.


Why is pointing out that the majority view may not be correct so impossible for you to contemplate?


I'm guessing that you just want to fight rather than think.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

The argument was that because the majority agree on something today and should be respected come hell or high water doesn't hold

No one is arguing this.

EyesClosed

Quiner wrote: »

Sure:

The young mother who has 6 months to live: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8989161/amp/Mum-23-three-appointments-cancelled-Covid-told-ZOOM-cancer.html

I'll have a look for a source for the other young woman. She was 31. I read the article in the paper, but I'll try to find it online.

OK so do you think had the hospitals been not overwhelmed with a pandemic, she would have been seen to earlier?

Quiner

EyesClosed wrote: »

OK so do you think had the hospitals been not overwhelmed with a pandemic, she would have been seen to earlier?

The point is that both of those young ladies should have been seen, but weren't because of the covid obsession and hysteria.

runawaybishop

Quiner wrote: »

The point is that both of those young ladies should have been seen, but weren't because of the covid obsession and hysteria.

Your first bit may be true, the latter isn't.

Quiner

runawaybishop wrote: »

Your first bit may be true, the latter isn't.

May be?

EyesClosed

Quiner wrote: »

The point is that both of those young ladies should have been seen, but weren't because of the covid obsession and hysteria.

Well can you show me it was hysteria, and not the hospital was over whelmed?

runawaybishop

Quiner wrote: »

May be?

Yes, may be. Medical staff conduct triage all the time. Someone with a low potential risk will be bumped for someone that is considered more serious. Hindsight is 20/20, at the time they were deemed low risk. If we didn't have an infectious disease runnng rampant in hospitals it is far more likely those people would have been seen and diagnosed earlier. It is disgraceful that medical staff are overwhelmed due to arseholes denying the seriousness of covid and causing it to spread and take capacity from hospitals.

runawaybishop

EyesClosed wrote: »

Well can you show me it was hysteria, and not the hospital was over whelmed?

He can't. Hospitals routinely cancel appointments due to infectious diseases/viruses etc. I had an appointment in Galway cancelled a couple years ago as the hospital had an outbreak of that vomiting bug.

Quiner

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, may be. Medical staff conduct triage all the time. Someone with a low potential risk will be bumped for someone that is considered more serious. Hindsight is 20/20, at the time they were deemed low risk. If we didn't have an infectious disease runnng rampant in hospitals it is far more likely those people would have been seems and diagnosed earlier. It is disgraceful that medical staff are overwhelmed due to arseholes denying the seriousness of covid and causing it to spread and take capacity from hospitals.

The 23 year old mother of one had six vital appointments on her because of the obsession with covid.

And the 31 year old lady had her chemo treatment paused because of the covid obsession.

I'm not denying the seriousness of covid, but other far more serious illnesses such as cancer were ignored in favour of covid. It's all in that article I linked to.