The Coronavirus Thread

[Scot Dutchy]

Enjoy the pissing game Joe. Watch out for your shoes. Keep sucking the tit and drink plenty of kool-aid. You need it.

Anyone thinks that Hermit is making as case knows very little about international data. Do you also accept the African, Indian and Asian data without question? Just how is that data collected do you think? Anyone who does that has no credibility. What I said was: "A bloody right wing organisation". Where is the think tank? Is not a bank a right wing organisation or have they all gone liberal?

Have you not noticed how reporting world data by the corrupt WHO has been subdued recently. Nobody accepts the accuracy of the data anymore. Too many mistakes and scandals. Politically motivated.

[Cunt]

The political motivation of WHO was displayed clearly when their spokesperson couldn't say 'Taiwan'.

Censorship is a declaration of weakness.

[Hermit]

If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good as those quoted because they will be as much worth.

As for US data, you're welcome to your opinion, but the fact that you mistook the US Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for a right wing think tank rather detracts from its credibility.

You made me click on that link. Thanks.

"If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good..." indeed. That's where Scotty pulled these numbers straight out of his arse: "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth." No link given. When I corrected him - with this link - showing that the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth, he cast aspersion at the source. The funny part about it is that when he eventually linked to a video purportedly supporting his assertion, the number it provided was a lot closer to stlouisfed than his original ex recto stuff. Well, at least I think the video's claim that "1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth." is a lot closer to St Louis reserve bank's the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth than to Scotty's "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.", but I don't know if he can see that. If he could, he would not have regarded it as evidence supporting his ex recto statement rather than the bank's.

The irony about claiming that he can give us any amount of numbers as good is that he never does. He just poopoos the ones he doesn't like and at best offers alternative facts he just makes up.

[Scot Dutchy]

With the fanfares all quiet the lack of organisation once again bedevils the so called vaccination programme.

Covid vaccine: UK doctors criticise rescheduling of second doses

GPs say cancelling appointments is waste of time and could lead to confusion among patients

Plans to delay giving the second dose of a Covid vaccine to more than 500,000 people who have received the first jab have caused outcry among doctors who say cancelling appointments wastes time, causes confusion among patients and is potentially unethical.

Recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine had previously been told there would be a three-week gap between doses, with many already booked in for their second jab.

But the government announced a change to its Covid vaccination strategy on Wednesday, saying second doses of the newly approved Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the previously approved Pfizer/BioNTech jab would now be given up to 12 weeks after the first dose.

The move applies to people scheduled to have their second dose of the Pfizer jab after 4 January, as well as those yet to receive either jab. The government said it hoped the approach would mean as many people as possible would soon have some protection against the disease.

The new regime was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the government’s advisory Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation, and backed by the chief medical officers of the four UK nations.

The announcement caused controversy, however. Pfizer and BioNTech warned that two doses of their vaccine were required for maximum protection against Covid and that they did not have evidence that the first dose alone offered protection after three weeks.

Azeem Majeed, a professor of primary care and public health at Imperial College London and a practising GP, said he was shocked by the change of plan.

“We’ve got thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of people who have already booked their second jabs, and these are people who are all elderly, so they often have to make special arrangements for their care or have someone to bring them down. Someone is going to have to ring all these patients to cancel their appointments and rebook them, so it is going to create a lot of work for people as well,” he said.

Talk about a piss-up in brewery. Even a simple birthday party is beyond this mob.

[Hermit]

The political motivation of WHO was displayed clearly when their spokesperson couldn't say 'Taiwan'.

Censorship is a declaration of weakness.

Not that canard again, Daggles. We've gone through just last May.

[Cunt]

You seem to be forgetting...your facts are fairly unbelievable. I don't have a problem believing you are so much smarter than everyone, but knowing how hilariously wrong you are in your political views, I trust that it infects everything you say.

The WHO won't cross the CCP. It reduces trust in their 'facts' in the same way remembering your quote reduces my trust in your 'facts'.

[Scot Dutchy]

If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good as those quoted because they will be as much worth.

As for US data, you're welcome to your opinion, but the fact that you mistook the US Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for a right wing think tank rather detracts from its credibility.

You made me click on that link. Thanks.

"If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good..." indeed. That's where Scotty pulled these numbers straight out of his arse: "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth." No link given. When I corrected him - with this link - showing that the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth, he cast aspersion at the source. The funny part about it is that when he eventually linked to a video purportedly supporting his assertion, the number it provided was a lot closer to stlouisfed than his original ex recto stuff. Well, at least I think the video's claim that "1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth." is a lot closer to St Louis reserve bank's the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth than to Scotty's "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.", but I don't know if he can see that. If he could, he would not have regarded it as evidence supporting his ex recto statement rather than the bank's.

The irony about claiming that he can give us any amount of numbers as good is that he never does. He just poopoos the ones he doesn't like and at best offers alternative facts he just makes up.

Still in the pissing game Hermit? Wearing wellies now are we. It is a right wing organisation or not. As for the rest of the crap; keep pissing. That figure was a forecast but of course you dont make a mistakes but only misquote and use worthless data.
Still sticking with your useless claims are we? Tell us how data in different countries is collected? Every one does it the same way and all definitions of a Covid death is identical? How many different sources are there in the world for Covid data? I have only seen one which then is interpreted by whoever.
How about answering my questions instead of playing silly buggers against a wall?

[Hermit]

If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good as those quoted because they will be as much worth.

As for US data, you're welcome to your opinion, but the fact that you mistook the US Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for a right wing think tank rather detracts from its credibility.

You made me click on that link. Thanks.

"If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good..." indeed. That's where Scotty pulled these numbers straight out of his arse: "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth." No link given. When I corrected him - with this link - showing that the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth, he cast aspersion at the source. The funny part about it is that when he eventually linked to a video purportedly supporting his assertion, the number it provided was a lot closer to stlouisfed than his original ex recto stuff. Well, at least I think the video's claim that "1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth." is a lot closer to St Louis reserve bank's the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth than to Scotty's "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.", but I don't know if he can see that. If he could, he would not have regarded it as evidence supporting his ex recto statement rather than the bank's.

The irony about claiming that he can give us any amount of numbers as good is that he never does. He just poopoos the ones he doesn't like and at best offers alternative facts he just makes up.

Still in the pissing game Hermit? Wearing wellies now are we. It is a right wing organisation or not. As for the rest of the crap; keep pissing. That figure was a forecast but of course you dont make a mistakes but only misquote and use worthless data.
Still sticking with your useless claims are we? Tell us how data in different countries is collected? Every one does it the same way and all definitions of a Covid death is identical? How many different sources are there in the world for Covid data? I have only seen one which then is interpreted by whoever.
How about answering my questions instead of playing silly buggers against a wall?

Nice tantrum, Scot.

[Joe]

Enjoy the pissing game Joe. Watch out for your shoes. Keep sucking the tit and drink plenty of kool-aid. You need it.

Anyone thinks that Hermit is making as case knows very little about international data. Do you also accept the African, Indian and Asian data without question? Just how is that data collected do you think? Anyone who does that has no credibility. What I said was: "A bloody right wing organisation". Where is the think tank? Is not a bank a right wing organisation or have they all gone liberal?

Have you not noticed how reporting world data by the corrupt WHO has been subdued recently. Nobody accepts the accuracy of the data anymore. Too many mistakes and scandals. Politically motivated.

You really should remember what you write Scot. That was the start of your mistaken assertions about the Federal Reserve Bank. You actually called it several names, including

Well it is a lot better than you pulled out of your arse especially from a right wing think tank.

Of course, your emphasis on the alleged political leanings of the bank is irrelevant. As you should have learned in rhetoric class, that is argumentum ad hominem, a classic case of fallacious reasoning, even if what you say is true.

Now if you want to compare credibility, the data Hermit cited was published by economists, using data that is publicly available, and is scrutinized by other economists and policy makers. Were you sufficiently interested in it's validity, you could examine it, how it's collected, and the assumptions made in tabulating it. All of that is available. You say the numbers are bogus, you could have proved it.

Funny you didn't do that, but resorted to personal attacks instead.

[Joe]

If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good as those quoted because they will be as much worth.

As for US data, you're welcome to your opinion, but the fact that you mistook the US Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for a right wing think tank rather detracts from its credibility.

You made me click on that link. Thanks.

"If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good..." indeed. That's where Scotty pulled these numbers straight out of his arse: "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth." No link given. When I corrected him - with this link - showing that the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth, he cast aspersion at the source. The funny part about it is that when he eventually linked to a video purportedly supporting his assertion, the number it provided was a lot closer to stlouisfed than his original ex recto stuff. Well, at least I think the video's claim that "1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth." is a lot closer to St Louis reserve bank's the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth than to Scotty's "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.", but I don't know if he can see that. If he could, he would not have regarded it as evidence supporting his ex recto statement rather than the bank's.

The irony about claiming that he can give us any amount of numbers as good is that he never does. He just poopoos the ones he doesn't like and at best offers alternative facts he just makes up.

Well, with all the references to sucking on the tit, taking the Kool-Aide, and pissing, it's surprising his positions aren't more fluid.

[Hermit]

If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good as those quoted because they will be as much worth.

As for US data, you're welcome to your opinion, but the fact that you mistook the US Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for a right wing think tank rather detracts from its credibility.

You made me click on that link. Thanks.

"If it is numbers you want I can give you any amount as good..." indeed. That's where Scotty pulled these numbers straight out of his arse: "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth." No link given. When I corrected him - with this link - showing that the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth, he cast aspersion at the source. The funny part about it is that when he eventually linked to a video purportedly supporting his assertion, the number it provided was a lot closer to stlouisfed than his original ex recto stuff. Well, at least I think the video's claim that "1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth." is a lot closer to St Louis reserve bank's the top 1% in America is a clear group owning 30.5% of America's wealth than to Scotty's "The 1% in America is a clear group owning 90% of America's wealth.", but I don't know if he can see that. If he could, he would not have regarded it as evidence supporting his ex recto statement rather than the bank's.

The irony about claiming that he can give us any amount of numbers as good is that he never does. He just poopoos the ones he doesn't like and at best offers alternative facts he just makes up.

Well, with all the references to sucking on the tit, taking the Kool-Aide, and pissing, it's surprising his positions aren't more fluid.

To be fair, Scot did add a solid tantrum a short while ago.

[Brian Peacock]

You seem to be forgetting...your facts are fairly unbelievable. I don't have a problem believing you are so much smarter than everyone, but knowing how hilariously wrong you are in your political views, I trust that it infects everything you say.

The WHO won't cross the CCP. It reduces trust in their 'facts' in the same way remembering your quote reduces my trust in your 'facts'.

The WHO avoids criticising any country it's trying to work with in order to avoid the kind of criticism you're charging it with for not criticising China, which, in your political opinion, is a country that warrants criticism. All you're doing is implying that for the WHO to be 'neutral' or 'unbiased' or 'politically correct' etc it should agree or align with your views on China - and as the WHO doesn't appear to meet that condition then it must be partial, biased, politically incorrect, or otherwise in China's thrall etc. This is a fallacy called the circular argument.

[Hermit]

You seem to be forgetting...your facts are fairly unbelievable.

What facts are fairly unbelievable? That the USA, Canada, Australia and every European country refuse to to recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state? That all but 14 of the UN's 193 member nations of the UN refuse to to recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state?

[rainbow]

You seem to be forgetting...your facts are fairly unbelievable. I don't have a problem believing you are so much smarter than everyone, but knowing how hilariously wrong you are in your political views, I trust that it infects everything you say.

The WHO won't cross the CCP. It reduces trust in their 'facts' in the same way remembering your quote reduces my trust in your 'facts'.

The WHO avoids criticising any country it's trying to work with in order to avoid the kind of criticism you're charging it with for not criticising China, which, in your political opinion, is a country that warrants criticism. All you're doing is implying that for the WHO to be 'neutral' or 'unbiased' or 'politically correct' etc it should agree or align with your views on China - and as the WHO doesn't appear to meet that condition then it must be partial, biased, politically incorrect, or otherwise in China's thrall etc. This is a fallacy called the circular argument.

The WHO has to walk a diplomatic tightrope, otherwise it loses the co-operation of the governments it works with.

Example is Trump pulling the US out because it refused to confirm his narrative that China was to blame. Possibly China could've done more, but they are not exactly the most transparent government in the world. What was Trump's excuse?

[Scot Dutchy]

The kool-aid is being really drunk in large quantities. Keep sucking the tit and swallow all the propaganda.
Nobody is bothering to check the figures. Yeah they must be right. Why not answer the questions?

How is the data collected?
Is it collected in the same in every country?
What is the validity of the data?
What are the agreed definitions of what a Covid case and death is?
How long after a positive test is it still considered a Covid death and is the same in every country?
Is the data from Africa, India and Asia accepted as real data and how it collected when most of those countries dont even have a health care service?

Just a few to start of with. I will give you a clue; there are no answers which is why the data is worthless and not open to comparison