Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Can you show me where McConkey said this please? This "several orders of magnitude" claim. As you have stated, "several orders of magnitude" are thousands of times more deadly than flu. So McConkey has stated publicly that COVID was at least a 1000X as dangerous as COVID. I've had a search but cant find this info.

This is completely statistically incorrect. Its very well established that negative vaccine side effects have been way more common from the second (and third) dose than the first. With every vaccination dose the rate of adverse reaction has been shown to increase. If there was "no cumulative effect" this wouldn't be the case.

"Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose"

Even the HSE themselves advise that side effects are more likely after the second dose:

"You are more likely to experience common side effects after the second dose."

There are lots, and lots of studies out there on this.

Where am I saying that it is actually Sam himself who said it? All I'm saying "the likes of.." and that does not mean that it is Sam himself who used these words. I'm merely making an association that such claims were made across the world by the proponents of lockdowns and zero covid policies who were coming up with various claims to support their opinions. Sam McConkey is just one of those figures.

Here, the definition of 'the likes of': https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/likes-of-someone-something

I do however remember him on a national television claiming that up to 60-70% of population was to be infected with the virus and up to 200k would possibly die of it in due course. I wish I recorded it. So go figure, do your own maths.

You're interpreting that definition incorrectly. For instance if someone said they were comoeting with the likes of IBM and Unisys, it would be bizarre if they meant "companies like IBM but not actually IBM".

The likes of X usually means X and other things like X.

According to whom the interpretation of ‘the likes of’ is incorrect? You?

Well, according to Cambridge Dictionary: someone or something that is equal to or as important as the person or thing being mentioned.

I quoted that definition when I explained my thought process. It is a fairly credible definition and refers to people or things that are similar to the one mentioned.

If someone has to continously cite a dictionary to try and wiggle out of ever providing evidence, then maybe he isn't as effective communicator as he believes he is.

More and more countries ending their restrictions so I wonder are we looking good for February 28th?

Mr McC and his counterpart in the U.K,Mr Ferguson,were remarkably similar in their predictions (Calculations ?).

Incredibly,they are both provenly equally incorrect.

 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/simon-harris-this-could-go-well-beyond-the-health-service-1.4197351

Prof McConkey can be as big an expert as he likes,but all his expertise counts for SFA,when his most unscientifically put predictions have been proven to be not along incorrect,but hugely so !

Accquiring professional stature at his level,usually entails using scientific language to factually support his conclusions,something our good Prof CHOSE to ignore in his crazed rush to meet the requirement to FRIGHTEN our population into comlpliance with whatever half cocked "Emergency Restrictions" then became necessary.

In the U.K.,the equally well qualified Prof Neil Ferguson adopted McConkeyism as his mantra also,and as a "Mathematical Epidemiologist" simply used his gift for sums to put his particular spin on how to FRIGHTEN entire countries into compliance.

https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2020/07/neil-ferguson-covid-modeller

Even Canada,who are showing great strength of character in their absolute buy-in to Fear Promotion,have cottoned on to how much coloured smoke was actually blown all over them by these Scientific equivalents of the "Crazy Cat Lady"

At least some Canadians were able to ask questions and point out the very evident flaws in how these "Scientists" both devised and presented their views,which turned out to be mere Opinions,just like the rest of us had.

Anybody out there sellin a few pups.? 😁

And again, as this had to be often stated. A scientist giving their worst case scenario is just that. It's not saying it will happen. That those numbers are the worst he thinks COULD happen. I'm sure if people really wanted to they could see that obvious distinction.

As Walus keeps using dictionary definitions of words, he obviously finds how they are used important. He has consistently used words and phrases to push the idea that McConkey and others were promoting that Covid was "several orders of magnitude" more deadly flu. And that he said 200k could die. That has now been shown to be untrue.

Words do matter. I repeatedly asked you for evidence that was you were saying was correct. You could not. Someone who was trying to come to your support has actually confirmed you got your numbers way off.

Simple as.

3 orders of magnitude is x1000

6 orders of magnitude is a x 1,000,000

Again, which scientists said this? Please provide evidence.

McConkey said in his worst case prediction that between 80-120k could die. That's ONÉ order of magnitude. Not several. One order of magnitude in his WORST case prediction.

You have just written AGAIN that scientists like McConkey have said this. Then you say "There is no denying that no matter how hard you try".

You seem sure. Please provide evidence. That's all I have asked for. Actual evidence that ANY of McConkey and his evil duplicitous scientific minions said this.

Few days after I initially made this request now. Still absolutely nothing. Just smears that cant be backed up.

I don't know why you try to get hung up on semantics. We have 6k deaths with covid after 2 years. The prediction was six digit figures over an unspecified timeframe.

A quick google defines 'orders of magnitude' as n = a * 10^b with b being the order of magnitude. So yes its not several orders but its definitely a different order of magnitude.

I guess people take orders of magnitude as n = a * 10^1 with a being the magnitude.

So yes you're right but it doesn't really make a difference for this argument I think. McConkey's worst case scenario was off by factor 20. Not just a bit off.

But yes, you're right.

Thank you for admitting that. And as for semantics, as I said, Walus was the one who made sure that he was specifically referring to several orders of magnitude more deadly than flu. That this was what scientists like McConkey we're saying. So I then asked him to back that up. He defined the terms, I said OK, show me proof on your terms.

And it 100% does make a difference to the argument. My point is people like Walus use incorrect info to try and smear scientists, making them seem like they have said something they haven't. It's important. No one said what Walus was claiming they said.

I appreciate you saying you were wrong. That doesn't happen much here, and I genuinely respect it.

For sure and it also suggests that we will more or less follow suit at the end of the month.