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

Correct.

Just catching up on a few posts. I see there are calls to close the thread because the restrictions are apparently no longer permanent and brianhere's argument debunked. When in reality there are more restrictions on the way and there continues to be no sign of any of the restrictions being lifted.

The 'echo chamber' stuff again when in reality they all just say the exact same thing as each other and thank each others posts non-stop. I have said before that they should just designate one poster per day since they all just say the exact same thing.

And yes, it's that people don't want to discuss things with certain posters. 24/7, Pointless et al.

Just reading through that reddit forum. Very interesting compared with this one. And no sealioning, as you say.

I'm sitting in a coffee shop and eating lunch. I'm going to cinema on Thursday. Might get a pint too during the week. We're in a drastically different scenario to a year ago.

But you had to show a pass/cert to those things, you had to wear a mask, you had to socially distance, you probably were greeted by half a face behind a perspex screen etc.

Do you really believe that with all the billions being spent on vaccine passports that they're a temporary measure? All the contracts signed, all the apps being developed. Can you name a single country that introduced them and then got rid of them?

New South Wales has vaccinated almost its entire population and still the passes are required almost everywhere. An interesting use of 'only in the following article:

"COVID-19 check-ins will only be required at some places.

These include hospitals, aged and disability care facilities, gyms, places of worship, funerals and memorial services, personal services, pubs, small bars and registered clubs, nightclubs, strip clubs, sex-on-premises and indoor music festivals with over 1000 people."

Coronavirus NSW restrictions update: All the COVID-19 rules changing from December 15 including masks, check-ins and unvaccinated rules | Explainer (9news.com.au)

And I'm looking at other countries 'cause I think it's a waste of time talking about restrictions in the context of Ireland. I don't believe they'll ever go. I don't particularly care either. I have my eye on other places.

And I guess you're just as much at a loss to explain how calling posters 'loons' and 'crazies' contributes to a useful discussion? Or does it only work one way?

And what exactly is the conspiracy theory here? Billions have been spent on vaccine passports all over the world, for example. All those billions for a temporary measure. Really? All the apps being developed. When it was said that they'd be used domestically people were ridiculed.

Why can't you understand that it's not that posters don't want to discuss things; it's that they don't want to discuss things with certain posters? What's complicated about that? The solution is for posters who are on ignore to not be able to reply to the posters that have them on ignore. That would solve this ridiculous thing of endless ignored posts. Yu would think the person would realise after a while that they're being ignored. But I'm flogging a dead horse here. It's not going to happen, so the endless ignored posts will continue.

WHO recommended that people wear them because of political lobbying, not because of scientific evidence.

PETER HITCHENS: Face masks turn us into voiceless submissives | Daily Mail Online

"Britain’s muzzle consumption is now so high that six months from now there will be reports of dolphins and whales floundering about in an ocean made sticky by millions of gallons of hand-sanitiser, as they choke on congealed clumps of used muzzles. These items are set to become the new plastic bags.

Why is this frenzy taking place?

Here is a clue. On July 12, Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight, revealed an astonishing thing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) had reversed its advice on face masks, from ‘don’t wear them’ to ‘do wear them’.

But the key fact was that it had not done so because of scientific information – the evidence had not backed the wearing of face coverings – but because of political lobbying.

She revealed on Twitter that: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’ She said the BBC had then put this to the WHO, which did not deny it.

But the key fact was that it had not done so because of scientific information – the evidence had not backed the wearing of face coverings – but because of political lobbying.

She revealed on Twitter that: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’ She said the BBC had then put this to the WHO, which did not deny it."

Who lobbied the WHO is what I would like to know.

And in the US Fauci lied about masks last year: Anthony Fauci and the U.S. government’s noble COVID-19 lies. (slate.com)

"In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more. Yet, emails from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Fauci privately gave the same advice—against mask use—suggesting it was not merely his outward stance to the broader public."

You have a habit of dismissing out of hand anything and everything that you disagree with. You don't even acknowledge that it exists.

In Peter Hitchens' article about masks he quotes Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight. Here's the quote again:

"We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying"

The issue isn't whether or not the things work, but whether they were recommended last year by WHO based on scientific evidence. Is Deborah Cohen lying?