Coronavirus Pandemic

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Johnson doesn't even let Vallance and Whitty answer questions now.

Is that following the science?

[GP]

I hope Johnson dies in a fire.

[Globalgunner]

Not cool. Think of the many children and the ones he is yet to breed.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

The life insurance should be ample to be split amongst them.

[Letters]

Groups of 6 people can officially meet outdoors.

That’s been happening for weeks Boris.

It’s quite funny how he keeps on telling us that we are now allowed to do what many people have been doing for years, like a teacher with no control over his class.

[Niall_Quinn]

Can't he be both? Those two things aren't a contradiction. He's been very successful in business and with investments, he's used some of that success to help others. He didn't have to do that, he could have dicked around putting stuff in space like Musk has (not that I think that is a terrible thing to be doing either).

The point of the video is to question Gates' motives for giving money away.
Is it to make money? That doesn't really check out, he'd be worth a lot more had he not.
Is it because he's into Eugenics? The only real basis is that his dad and some of his associates were, there's some quote about end of life support from Gates but that's a complicated area where difficult decisions must be made. Certainly not an indication that he believes that certain people are "less worthy" of life. His work with poorer nations rather undermines the idea that he believes himself and his ilk to be superior.

So is it about control then? Well, not much evidence is presented but it's certainly true that Gates has fingers in lots of pies - I'd agree, probably too many but when you have that amount of money to invest it's going to be spread all over the place. And some of his practices have been questionable, trying to make it so everyone had to use IE, buying up companies who they saw as potential competitors. But these are also factors in being a company that big and powerful, every company that big wants to have a monopoly. Facebook now do the same - they bought WhatsApp for example. Ironic that Microsoft made a couple of attempts to by Facebook in its early days.

When you're head of an organisation that big you're going to have a lot of power and influence. I think it's fine to be concerned about that, where it becomes a conspiracy theory is to assert with no real evidence that his motive is to control. Maybe he just wants to help people. You can debate whether he's going about things the right way or doing the right things, but you have an underlying cynicism about pretty much everyone's motives. I don't know how you square that with a recently expressed belief that people are generally decent.

Genuinely can't believe you said that I "can't simply say [I] disagree but instead seek to discredit those who have a different opinion". Are you just trolling? That is literally your go to tactic with anyone and every person or organisation you disagree with. I didn't "seek" to discredit Corbett by the way, I've already dealt with that. You accused me of searching out what you called a "hit piece" on him. Actually all I did was click on the first link I found which wasn't his own site. And what did you do, other than call it a "hit piece"? You tried to discredit the site it was from. Irony, much?

I'm not imprisoned and nor are you, there are no bars. You're the one freely doing what you want but declaring yourself to be in jail. You declare the lockdown dead and witness people going about doing as they please while you wring your hands about how controlled we are. In some countries I could get locked up for going to church or even owning a Bible, in some countries I'd have far less freedom than I do here. Obviously I can't literally do anything I want, there are some rules, that is the price of living in a society. But in exchange we have infrastructure and comfort. To me it's a fair exchange. If the argument is that control is coming, well, people have been saying that for decades.

I don't know why Ferguson has the ear of the politicians but working with and in the Civil Service for as long as I have I know there is a lot of incompetence around. Bad decisions have been made at my place based on bad advice by people who don't know what they're doing. Neither the people giving the advice nor the people taking it are doing so with any malicious intent, they're just idiots. I'm more inclined to think it's idiocy than part of some master-plan. And yes, it's absolutely the politician's fault if they act on bad advice. It is literally their job to make decisions and policy. Ferguson's paper is publicly available, as is all his previous work. If his models are as bad as you suggest then it's not hard to find that out - you did - and take that into account when taking advice and making decisions. Yes, of course money buys influence but ultimately the buck stops with the people making the decisions.

What "game" do you think I'm playing with the covid league tables? I've been fairly consistently looking at the deaths per million stats, calling out the US and the UK as doing poorly based on the data. You have been looking at the same data but then saying how well the US has been doing by declaring the data fake when it doesn't show that.

I have no contempt for Corbett, automated or otherwise. I have no "conditioned response" - any more than you have when you see what he has to say, see it fits in with your world view and you wag your tail. It didn't hurt me to listen, I did listen. I watched the videos you posted, found them full of contradictions, twisted facts, out of context quotes and conjecture. Are they being removed from public? He's still there. As Ricky Gervais lamented, it used to be "my opinion is as good as your opinion", now it's "my opinion is as good as your fact". You can have an opinion about anything but if your opinion is "5G is spreading coronavirus" which has no basis in reality, you spout that opinion across the internet and people attack 5G towers (or towers which aren't 5G because they're idiots and don't know which is which) then yeah, that's a bad thing. "They" are not trying to suppress views which aren't the mainstream, if they were then Corbett would be long gone. But removing things which are demonstrably bullshit and could cause people to come to harm if they believe it - or at least warning people it's bullshit. Seems fairly reasonable.

No, there will never be one opinion, never has been. This dystopia you imagine isn't happening. If anything it's going the other way - we are now in an era when anyone can spout anything across the internet with no oversight or consequence. The old adage that a lie travels twice around the world before the truth has got its boots on is truer than ever. It's no coincidence that belief in FE is proliferating in an era when the loonies who used to shout on street corners can now shout across the internet and reach a large audience. (Not the first time I've mentioned them, they are a little obsession of mine, my mind is boggled that people could believe that sort of claptrap). Belief in FE is fairly benign, as these things go. It's slightly depressing how scientifically illiterate people are but whatever, doesn't really matter. But believing that vaccines are linked to autism is less benign. That entire belief, which is worryingly widespread, is based on one since discredited study which the press plastered all over their front pages to much hand wringing.

You are increasingly sounding like Harry Enfield's "Is that what you want? 'Cos that's what'll 'appen" character. But it won't happen. It won't happen because "they" aren't trying to control you. They aren't trying to help you either, particularly, I don't think they really care about you either way.

Fortunately for you, though it's unlikely you realise it and you certainly don't appreciate it, there are people in the world who are not so gullible and complacent. Their efforts preserve what limited freedom you have, by freedom I mean the unhindered exercise of inalienable rights that are being threatened and undermined all over the world - not the permissions and conveniences you confuse with rights and liberty. Whether you grasp it or not, it will always be an abuse when one individual, or a group of likeminded individuals, elevate their own rights to undermine or eliminate the rights of others. This is the control I speak of. You seem to envisage this as somebody stomping into your home and ordering you to obey (although that's not too far away now). If my inalienable rights are infringed in any manner, say for example by mandatory vaccination or voluntary vaccination that deprives me of rights should I refuse to "volunteer", then that is an abuse, regardless of the justifications - which are invalid by default. There is no such thing as an optional inalienable right, or an inalienable right that can be set aside given certain circumstances. And inalienable rights can never be removed (unless God himself has a change of mind), although they can be suppressed by violence.

This is the fundamental difference between us. You see rights as permissions that can be granted and withdrawn. I see them in a light that so-called reasonable liberals claim to see them, but I'm being genuine about it. You have often said it is impractical for individuals to enjoy inalienable rights. You have argued that there must be some segment of the population that enjoys more rights than the rest. This is a nonsensical assessment of the very nature of inalienable rights. A tawdry excuse for the abuse of rights under some guise of organisation and convenience. You should read your history books (as in read books, rather than watch the History Channel) - you'll find that all those who freely relinquished their rights ended up paying the ultimate price. A quarter billion casualties in the last century, all at the hands of governments who were here to help. Nothing else touches that carnage.

So as the next iteration of the state dawns, global governance controlled by unelected technocrats and administered by elected transients, it may not be entirely wise to rely on these people having your best interests at heart. History tells us this has never (once) been the case, unless you can give me a compelling example of course. Maybe I missed something. When any one man says, this is how it must be for all of us, the informed hear one thing and the indoctrinated and complacent hear another.

Let's hope, then, that the ultimate monopolist has changed his spots and is now out for the betterment of mankind. Let's overlook his campaigning to indemnify his friends in their efforts to save the world. And let's sweep all the Indian, African and South American victims of his altruism under the rug.

[WMUG]

Where do inalienable rights come from, and what makes them inalienable?

That's a genuine question btw, not an attempt at rhetorical point scoring.

[Mac76]

Where do inalienable rights come from, and what makes them inalienable?

That's a genuine question btw, not an attempt at rhetorical point scoring.

quite, someone has to decide on which rights are inalienable - one person might think it's their inalienable right to shout loudly in the street for no reason, while another might think they should have the shit kicked out of them by a bunch of state-sponsored fascist troopers...

[Niall_Quinn]

Where do inalienable rights come from, and what makes them inalienable?

That's a genuine question btw, not an attempt at rhetorical point scoring.

That would depend on your belief system. In the Christian west inalienable rights are bestowed by your creator and cannot be repealed by any sovereign or legal system. Even so, civilised societies tend to align their legal systems with these rights, so even absent a creator, these rights are still recognised and understood to be enshrined beyond the scope of legal systems.

Though that has never stopped sovereigns or the legal profession pretending they are entitled, by authority which they grant to themselves, to create exceptions to that which cannot have exceptions.

[Niall_Quinn]

quite, someone has to decide on which rights are inalienable - one person might think it's their inalienable right to shout loudly in the street for no reason, while another might think they should have the shit kicked out of them by a bunch of state-sponsored fascist troopers...

You're confusing natural rights with legal and/ or human rights.