Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
tneva82 wrote: Lol. In england there's sabotage against g5 masts due to theories g5 network masts spread corona virus.
Wtf? Under what logic that works??? People getting bored enough to invent conspiracy theories?
edit: aah linked above. Funny as hell. And unsurprisingly ignores the fact it spreads even where no G5 exists.
We know for a fact that a lot of the antivax movement was spearheaded/spread/sponsored by Russia (in addition to sponsoring soe European and Other political parties and movements), I do have to wonder if this latest bout of idiocy isn't just more of their truly superb online psychological warfare.
Doesn't explain how it is believed. Under what logic those fools link corona virus and G5 network? They think corona is computer virus spread electronically and then somehow...jump into human body?
Okay there's actual case of human being "infected" by computer virus but that was chip implanted into person getting infected. Somebody read that and ran with it?-)
Sadly the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper, and derpier.
I forget the exact term, but there is a known psychological issue which is prevalent in conspiracy theories.
Apologies for the paraphrasing and over simplification, but it boils down to believing You Know Better - about everything. And once you’ve chosen your truth, that’s it, you’re right, everyone else is wrong and lying.
Pretty sure I picked it up from a Scimandan YouTube video. But he’s so many, I couldn’t point you to it!
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
tneva82 wrote: Lol. In england there's sabotage against g5 masts due to theories g5 network masts spread corona virus.
Wtf? Under what logic that works??? People getting bored enough to invent conspiracy theories?
edit: aah linked above. Funny as hell. And unsurprisingly ignores the fact it spreads even where no G5 exists.
We know for a fact that a lot of the antivax movement was spearheaded/spread/sponsored by Russia (in addition to sponsoring soe European and Other political parties and movements), I do have to wonder if this latest bout of idiocy isn't just more of their truly superb online psychological warfare.
Doesn't explain how it is believed. Under what logic those fools link corona virus and G5 network? They think corona is computer virus spread electronically and then somehow...jump into human body?
Okay there's actual case of human being "infected" by computer virus but that was chip implanted into person getting infected. Somebody read that and ran with it?-)
No its radio waves. Basically the same idea as broadband causing headaches in people etc... Basically people know that these machines put out waves and radio and radiation waves etc.... and basically just build off the idea that if radiation is a wave which can cause cancers and harm then so too can huge masts putting out vast quantities into the air that they can't see. So its more mixing up basic understandings of radiation and its real negative impacts on the human body; with radio waves and waves in general along with relative power of those waves and the nature of the particles etc...
It's not helped by early claims of very early generation mobile phones putting out dangerous levels of radiation or potentially dangerous etc....
There is a train of logic in it all, often built upon a foundation of early school sciences understood at a not great level. Accepting that school science is already a lot of fabricated theories that often aren't "real" but are used to teach a foundation understanding. (which is often poorly understood by many because at school its rarely explained to students that what they are learning is factually incorrect, but useful as a foundation)
I forget the exact term, but there is a known psychological issue which is prevalent in conspiracy theories.
Apologies for the paraphrasing and over simplification, but it boils down to believing You Know Better - about everything. And once you’ve chosen your truth, that’s it, you’re right, everyone else is wrong and lying.
Pretty sure I picked it up from a Scimandan YouTube video. But he’s so many, I couldn’t point you to it!
It's basically the whole "you don't know what you don't know" aspect of learning. Ergo that when you don't know much about a subject you actually lack enough foundation to not realise that you don't know enough. Of course some people, often those who have learned the skill to self-learn subjects, are more aware of this aspect than others, but it can catch us all out in subjects we don't fully understand. Even the internet is not help because comprehensive and detailed articles are rare; the majority are small tid-bits of information which are easy to search, but where if you don't know to search for it you won't find it. Furthermore because sites like google rank on popularity and search terms they don't provide any curation - so false information can spread veyr easily just by having a high google ranking.
There's a high ranking website talking about halfbreed animals that's basically all fake science, but it ranks up really high and thus can mislead many people.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/05 11:11:36
I remember reading somewhere that there’s a strong correlation between believing in conspiracy theories and being a narcissist. It’s a mixture of ‘I refuse to believe in what everyone else believes in because I am better and more important than them and I refuse to be another faceless nobody’ and ‘pay attention to me!’ Watch that Netflix documentary behind the curve; the guy is wearing a flat earth shirt that says ‘ask me about my shirt’, and is basically going around annoying complete strangers in public, using the flimsiest of pretences to start talking about flat earth to them. He’s more or less an overgrown toddler seeking attention.
Future War Cultist wrote: I remember reading somewhere that there’s a strong correlation between believing in conspiracy theories and being a narcissist. It’s a mixture of ‘I refuse to believe in what everyone else believes in because I am better and more important than them and I refuse to be another faceless nobody’ and ‘pay attention to me!’ Watch that Netflix documentary behind the curve; the guy is wearing a flat earth shirt that says ‘ask me about my shirt’, and is basically going around annoying complete strangers in public, using the flimsiest of pretences to start talking about flat earth to them. He’s more or less an overgrown toddler seeking attention.
I've seen a few youtube videos on flat-earthers and being as its a more benign belief (unlike health ones it doesn't hurt anyone if you believe the earth is round, flat, oblong or whatever) it tends to have a slightly more relaxed air. What I noticed was a lot of them were very much into it more for the social aspects than for the science. Indeed many were clearly just looking for a group to fit into where they could achieve a level of understanding and respect and connection within the group and where they can do activities together. You see some of the very same patterns in gang culture and suchlike as we. It's basically a few ring-leaders who guide the group with a larger majority who just want to be part of a group. The actual cause is often secondary, however once they are in the group the cause becomes their own and becomes part of their self identity.
Anyway I think we are perhaps getting off topic a bit
Future War Cultist wrote: I remember reading somewhere that there’s a strong correlation between believing in conspiracy theories and being a narcissist. It’s a mixture of ‘I refuse to believe in what everyone else believes in because I am better and more important than them and I refuse to be another faceless nobody’ and ‘pay attention to me!’ Watch that Netflix documentary behind the curve; the guy is wearing a flat earth shirt that says ‘ask me about my shirt’, and is basically going around annoying complete strangers in public, using the flimsiest of pretences to start talking about flat earth to them. He’s more or less an overgrown toddler seeking attention.
brilliant , ties in exactly with all the main conspiracy types I know
Jerram wrote: How'd you arrive at the average since I don't see it in the data ? Did you take into account the various counties populations when calculating that average ? Did you calculate pre brexit since the occupancy numbers are pre brexit ? How did you account for the fact that your data specifically calls out a decrease in the number of beds over time which would most likely result in a higher occupancy rate than the 72% from a different study done in an earlier timeframe. And if you read the comparability section in goes through a litany of differences in how those numbers are calculated in different countries rendering cross country comparison a hazardous activity.
What really jumps out at me about that data is how much S Korea increased in those 17 years, would be interesting to see that broken down by year and see how much of that was tied into the previous SARS outbreak and potential lessons learned.
The other thing that jumps out at me is our friends to the North could be F'd, low beds per capita and over 90% occupancy rate.
You left out the deployables I mentioned, the US basically just added another .5 beds per person (in NYC) which may not seem like much until you realize it was exactly where it was needed.
You average out the 2017 numbers of the EU countries displayed? In that way you don't need to account for population because the beds per 1000 already accounts for that in the average, with patients getting shared across borders. .
This part is incorrect just too demonstrate and keep it simple by your method the average for S Korea and India is 6.4 but when you take into account population and you're somewhere under 1. I wouldn't expect it to be that dramatic but it doesnt need to be to change the comparison.
I'm not talking just beds and a building when I say deployables, I'm talking deployable capability. They're being manned by military personel most likely active duty and reserve.
That is the exact same way the WHO calculates occupancy in your statistics though, pile on the countries and average it out, so occupancy average says nothing about empty beds except for the EU average not accounting for beds per 1000, say the NL is 10% under while another is 10% over average. Yet it is close enough to be a reasonably accurate average. I quickly averaged it because the large countries are about equally divided on either end in the EU (yes plus the UK) in regards to beds, here is the specific number then when taking population and beds per country into account when averaging: about 4.88 per 1000, so 0.02 under the average I quickly did. So that changes virtually nothing to the 25% average of extra beds.
Interesting and you've made a decent argument that the EU overall may have more available bed space, ( I'd need to know in more detail what and was'nt included, still too many questions) but doesn't change the original point that was addressing someone else. The US doesn't have a shortage of beds because private hospitals are evil and minimize all excess capacity, and the detailed data you averaged out supports that (look at some of the countries with fewer beds and higher utilization rates.
Actually it does. US hospital bed capacity (in both real and per 1000 terms) has been declining for decades:
in large part driven by hospital closures and mergers, as well as the implementation of HMO insurance plans which reduced hospital occupancy rates, all of which are driven by for-profit financial considerations:
"By the mid-1990s, Boston's hospitals were also becoming concerned about high HMO enrollment. In 1996, the HMOs' market share in Boston was 43.6 percent, compared with a national large metropolitan average of 27.8 percent. Boston's hospitals believed that the wide-scale use of global capitation was imminent and that selective contracting would steer more care away from the academic centers to traditional acute care hospitals in the community. The major hospital systems in Boston began to plan for hospital downsizing and service restructuring in their teaching and community hospitals. These plans included expanding certain core services at the teaching hospitals (e.g., cardiology, cardiac surgery, oncology, and orthopedics) and expanding traditional hospital services at system community hospitals (e.g., maternity care, elective orthopedic services, ophthalmology, psychiatric services, and postacute services).
Another event that strained Boston hospitals was cutbacks in Medicare payments that resulted from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA). Although the BBA affected hospitals nationwide, Boston with its five teaching hospitals was especially hard hit given their high cost of care. Subsequent refinements of the BBA relaxed its provisions, but through 2000, Boston's hospitals generally reported financial losses that they attributed to this legislation. The CareGroup hospital system was especially affected, with its flagship, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, incurring large financial losses. These losses stifled plans to restructure services at Beth Israel Deaconess, and CareGroup instead had to focus on cutting rather than converting hospital capacity.
Overall, the hospital downsizing during this period led to the elimination of many staffed beds at Boston's hospitals and health systems. By 2000, Partners HealthCare system had eliminated 200 to 250 staffed beds; CareGroup Healthcare System, 250 staffed beds; and Boston Medical Center, nearly 150. In total, these cuts represented a 15 percent reduction in these institutions' overall staffed bed stock."
"Throughout most of the 1990s, the perception of many Cleveland stakeholders was that the market had too much hospital capacity. Even though hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Hospital attracted admissions from both around the United States and abroad, the marketwide hospital occupancy rate in the community was only 59.7 percent in 1996, compared with the large metropolitan average of 62.1 percent (table 1).
Beginning in 1999, some hospitals in the market closed. In that year, St. Luke's Medical Center shut its acute care hospital, and in March 2000, Mt. Sinai Medical Center–University Circle closed. Shortly afterward, the national hospital management company that closed Mt. Sinai Medical Center–University Circle announced plans to close two more Cleveland hospitals, but they remained open due to community outcry and the actions of two of the community's large hospital systems. In all, the two hospitals that closed had about 600 to 700 staffed beds, which was about 9 percent of the market's capacity.
The immediate effect of the closures was to shift hospital service demand to the remaining hospitals, especially those in downtown Cleveland that were located near the two closed hospitals. Hospital occupancy rates increased citywide from 58.7 percent in 1998 to 62.5 percent in 2001. The number of visits to the emergency departments of the remaining hospitals increased to absorb the 77,000 visits per year that the two closed hospitals had once provided. Hospital respondents reported that as a result, the frequency of ambulance diversions in 2001 rose by 400 percent over that in 1998."
"A major factor that affected Miami's hospital capacity in the mid-1990s was the dominance of HMOs in the market and their influence on the demand for hospital services. In 1996, the market share of Miami's HMOs was 52.9 percent, almost double the large metropolitan area average of 27.8 percent. Declines in inpatient admissions and lengths of stay as a result of HMO dominance eventually led hospitals to reduce the number of beds they staffed.
Then a series of events in the late 1990s made hospitals in the community realize that their capacity was being strained. First, the consumer backlash against HMOs was believed to have increased the demand for inpatient services as health plans relaxed utilization management controls and offered more open access. At the same time, some hospitals in the market were expanding their national and international marketing to attract patients in high-margin service lines. During this period too, the demand for charity care continued to grow, and problems in Florida's long-term care industry led to backups of patients in hospitals caused by the reduced availability of nursing home beds."
"In the early 1990s, the Phoenix market was perceived to have excess hospital capacity because the state lacked CON legislation to regulate hospital growth and expansion. As HMOs' market share grew, Phoenix's hospitals reacted to actual and anticipated reductions in the demand for their services by maintaining the same number of staffed beds even while the area's population continued to grow. As a result, the number of staffed hospital beds per 1,000 population in Phoenix was only 1.9 in 2001, compared with the large metropolitan average of 2.5.
As it did in other communities, the backlash against managed care in Phoenix led to greater demand for hospital services. Table 1 data indicate that increased hospital services use in Phoenix in fact exceeded its rate of population growth. Specifically, Phoenix's population grew by 25.2 percent from 1996 to 2003, whereas inpatient admissions grew by 43.2 percent and emergency visits by 54.9 percent.
Also keep in mind that for the most part the perception that ~35% of hospital beds are empty at any given time is in large part driven by an uneven distribution of capacity which results in more rural states having an excess of available beds, in turn driving down the average utilization rates even though hospitals in many states are operating at much higher utilization rates:
Generally it seems like the smaller states and high pop. states are in the neighborhood of ~70+% occupancy ( a quick look seems to indicate New York peaks at 78%), vs rural/flyover states like Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. that are in the 50% range.
Another aspect that isn't really discussed often is that on a baseline level, the US has a higher rate of preventable hospitalizations than most the rest of the industrialized world, in large part driven by our largely unaffordable for-profit healthcare system disincentivizing large numbers of patients from seeking early and/or preventative treatment and winding up in a hospital bed when their health situation worsens to the point of treatment being unavoidable:
Meaning that a larger share of our hospital beds are being used to treat patients that would not have needed a hospital bed otherwise.
As for the Europe having its peak all at once, of course not. But the US military is deploying a lot of force to NY and LA because of their peaks. But you can see peaks are starting to occur in Florida, Pennsylvania , Louisiana and Michigan, can they deploy there as forcefully at the same time as they are doing now in NY and LA? Even the Pentagon has pointed out that there are limits (from Joint Staff Surgeon Brigadier General P. Friedrichs):
We only have 2 hospital ships, so no. Various other classes have various medical capabilites, but you're talking anywhere between 10 and 50 beds depending on the type of vessel/class, and those are mostly ships that are needed elsewhere for other operations. This isn't our total military healthcare capacity mind you, Army and Air Force have additional assets that they can deploy, but none of them can come close to touching the breadth and depth of what those two ships can offer. The supplemental deployable healthcare resources offered by the military won't be able to truly shore up the deficiencies in our healthcare system unless the pandemic turns out to be a good bit less severe than what we are now expecting. IIRC theres 14 national guard field hospitals and 8 active duty field hospitals, each unit has a max capacity of ~250 beds (?) for a grand total of ~5500 additional beds? Most of the guard hospitals are operated by civilian healthcare professionals, so they aren't really deployable as they are needed in civilian hospitals at the moment, so you're probably limited to the 8 active duty ones, total of 2,000 additional beds? Thats not even a 1% increase over our available civilian bed capacity - its helpful in a localized breakout, but not in a nationwide pandemic.
I've seen some discussion of the army corps of engineers establishing supplementary field hospitals that can be staffed by retired healthcare professionals, but that seems somewhat inadvisable given the risks posed to older people. Theoretically you would only send non-infected patients to those facilities, but how effectively can you screen out any and all potential patients that might be infected to safeguard against a breakout?
All that math you just did to come up with a lower number as max than already deployed capability....Thats before we get into all the shutdown clinics (not hospitals) on military bases, do we really need to keep them fully staffed when their not seeing most of their patients ?
Or how about the 9,000 plus medical personell who have expressed interest in returning to active duty and that's not including the hundreds of thousands available but that's gets in to the involuntary recall I said is when you know it hits the fan. And while you have to be careful who you grab you'd be suprised at how many changed careers. I know 4 former military nurses, 2 of them are still in the field.
Think of this like a military campaign. Right away the special forces go in to harass, then you send in the Marine expeditionary units that are rapidly deployable to hold the line and then you bring in the Army to start seizing ground, then you start mobilizing for sustainment (a little more challenging in the current environment but a deep well nonetheless). We're currently on step 2.
So Scotland's Chief Medical Officer had been caught making unnecessary journeys to her holiday home.
I wish I was making it up.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: So Scotland's Chief Medical Officer had been caught making unnecessary journeys to her holiday home.
I wish I was making it up.
Yeah thats incredably stupid and smacks of "do what I say not what i do" which is extremely harmful
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Good thing it's not actually against the law then. What if it needed maintenance? What if there were items there that needed returning?
She went with her whole family two weekends in a row.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Good thing it's not actually against the law then. What if it needed maintenance? What if there were items there that needed returning?
She went with her whole family two weekends in a row.
Better not to engage, he thinks personal liberty is more important than stopping the infection.
In theory if the family went from home A to home B and interacted with 0 people during that trip (ergo they remained within the car). And then at home B interacted with 0 people then the infection couldn't spread.
Justifiably one could argue it was a safe action. They could even argue that for the exercise per day it was safer to head out of town and walk the countryside than to remain within the urban setting.
That said clearly there's an increased risk of greater spread of any disease if people remain mobile like that and even if they did not intend to interact with anyone stuff happens. You get a flat now you've got to interact with a roadside repair person; you run out of food and make an essential food trip; postman visits; they encounter someone out on a walk etc... Lots of potential casual ways in which they could have interacted and increased any potential spread outside of a specific circle.
Increased potential risk since she's in healthcare at the political level so, just like the PM, she could have had increased potential exposure through her work. Placing her on a higher tier of potentially being infected and spreading.
In the end its an activity that could be conducted safe; but it wasn't "essential" and as someone in the government line of work and in the HEALTH line of work pushing for people NOT to do just what she did its a very bad move. It's not leading by example.
Azreal13 wrote: So Scotland's Chief Medical Officer had been caught making unnecessary journeys to her holiday home.
I wish I was making it up.
In finland boss of organization handling public health came into press conference sneezy and likely fever
As it turns out that was good PR though as it painted vividly "this is what you most def should not do"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: In theory if the family went from home A to home B and interacted with 0 people during that trip (ergo they remained within the car). And then at home B interacted with 0 people then the infection couldn't spread.
Justifiably one could argue it was a safe action. They could even argue that for the exercise per day it was safer to head out of town and walk the countryside than to remain within the urban setting.
That said clearly there's an increased risk of greater spread of any disease if people remain mobile like that and even if they did not intend to interact with anyone stuff happens. You get a flat now you've got to interact with a roadside repair person; you run out of food and make an essential food trip; postman visits; they encounter someone out on a walk etc... Lots of potential casual ways in which they could have interacted and increased any potential spread outside of a specific circle.
Increased potential risk since she's in healthcare at the political level so, just like the PM, she could have had increased potential exposure through her work. Placing her on a higher tier of potentially being infected and spreading.
In the end its an activity that could be conducted safe; but it wasn't "essential" and as someone in the government line of work and in the HEALTH line of work pushing for people NOT to do just what she did its a very bad move. It's not leading by example.
Another is if he/she becomes sick on trip where is it handled? Here idea of going to summer cot to escape corona virus is heavily discouraged. On surface that's safe as you are alone with your family in middle of forest or around lake. Where's the harm? You are near lot fewer people than cities.
It also puts health services of smaller places(where those summer cottages tend to be) at risk of increased burden beyond what they can handle...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/05 16:30:43
She has literally spent weeks telling people they absolutely should not travel for exercise (because the mountains have been really busy) or to their second home (because so many people have rural homes in Scotland).
good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Good thing it's not actually against the law then. What if it needed maintenance? What if there were items there that needed returning?
She went with her whole family two weekends in a row.
Better not to engage, he thinks personal liberty is more important than stopping the infection.
maybe not more, but definitely not to be disregarded
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/04/05 17:39:17
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
This feels pretty disingenuous because I simply don't think you're daft enough not to see why 'for everyone's safety it is absolutely essential that absolutely everyone ceases to do this thing I am doing' is problematic for a medical expert to say during a pandemic.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Good thing it's not actually against the law then. What if it needed maintenance? What if there were items there that needed returning?
She went with her whole family two weekends in a row.
Better not to engage, he thinks personal liberty is more important than stopping the infection.
maybe not more, but definitely not to be disregarded
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
You're really not grasping this are you?
She travels 50 miles to go to her holiday home. Half way there, a deer launches itself at the car and causes an accident. They're in the middle of nowhere and the car ends up in an awkward location.
We now have a family (let's say 4 people) requiring at least a crew of paramedics, perhaps a fire crew, maybe an air ambulance, at minimum.
That's now a bunch of people brought into proximity of her family and each other, all first responders who could be doing better things with their time, or simply not doing anything and saving the taxpayer cash.
Say a couple of the family need a hospital visit for injuries. That's now exposing them to an exponential number of risks, assuming none of them are currently carriers and exposing any number of other people in turn.
Now, thanks to that hospital visit one of them does indeed pick up Covid 19, and they get hit hard because it's one of the kids and he's got asthma. That kid is now taking up a bed and possibly a ventilator.
All because she didn't follow her own fething advice.
Before you come back with something trite like "yeah, but that didn't happen" I can guarantee that something like that would happen on a daily basis if the whole country were moving about like normal, because that's the fething point of staying at home.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
So what? Ah yes better for many lives and money lost. FREEEEDOM!
Bleargh. Some people have no sense of common good. Just me me me me me me me ME ME ME ME
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Good thing it's not actually against the law then. What if it needed maintenance? What if there were items there that needed returning?
My parents have a second holiday home. When it needs maintenance they call on of of the various local tradespeople and pay them to go and fix it.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
This feels pretty disingenuous because I simply don't think you're daft enough not to see why 'for everyone's safety it is absolutely essential that absolutely everyone ceases to do this thing I am doing' is problematic for a medical expert to say during a pandemic.
.
No, I dont believe that. I believe adults are able to make their own decisions informed by the relevant information, and applying common sense. If someone wants to go to another property they own, why shouldnt they be allowed to? plenty of people who work away from home are communting each weekend. whats the difference? theyre not coming into contact with anyone, theyre following the rules on distancing.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
So what? Ah yes better for many lives and money lost. FREEEEDOM!
Bleargh. Some people have no sense of common good. Just me me me me me me me ME ME ME ME
If you actually read my posts instead of peoples idiotic responses, maybe you'd realise what I am actually saying.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/05 18:54:48
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
This feels pretty disingenuous because I simply don't think you're daft enough not to see why 'for everyone's safety it is absolutely essential that absolutely everyone ceases to do this thing I am doing' is problematic for a medical expert to say during a pandemic.
.
No, I dont believe that. I believe adults are able to make their own decisions informed by the relevant information, and applying common sense. If someone wants to go to another property they own, why shouldnt they be allowed to? plenty of people who work away from home are communting each weekend. whats the difference? theyre not coming into contact with anyone, theyre following the rules on distancing.
And yet when the UK public was first told to isolate the first thing they did that VERY weekend was all head out to the same countryside spots. This is also after weeks of other countries showing how to isolate; media; TV etc.... the idea and theory if isolation was very clearly spelled out and yet many chose not to isolate and tried to continue as normal. Even if when they got to the destination they were trying to keep away its hard to impossible if your'e all using the same carpark; same toilets etc...
Also I think the key difference is that she took the risk of non-essential travel whilst at the same time telling others not to do it. She was telling the whole population to do X and she went and did X.
If you actually read my posts instead of peoples idiotic responses, maybe you'd realise what I am actually saying.
People realise what you're saying, they just don't agree with you.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I agree, some people are dumb, and lots of people did disregard the initial guidance. so bring in the emergency bill. great, I dont have a problem with that. what I have a problem with is when those tasked with enforcing the 'guidelines' apply the mentality that everyone is at that same level of stupidity, and treat everyone as such.
And like I said, yeah shes a hypocrite, but shes telling people what shes supposed to, but obviously feels like she needed a break from that environment, I personally dont see that an an issue.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I agree, some people are dumb, and lots of people did disregard the initial guidance. so bring in the emergency bill. great, I dont have a problem with that. what I have a problem with is when those tasked with enforcing the 'guidelines' apply the mentality that everyone is at that same level of stupidity, and treat everyone as such.
And like I said, yeah shes a hypocrite, but shes telling people what shes supposed to, but obviously feels like she needed a break from that environment, I personally dont see that an an issue.
Rules without enforcement fast become rules people don't follow all that well if at all.
And if she gets to have a break from the urban environment then - well - doesn't everyone else also deserve a break? At which point we are back to the problem of 70 million people all wanting to go to the countryside for a break at the same time and back to isolation no longer functioning.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: good thing being a hypocrite isn't a crime either then. I dont get the point here? yeah shes a hypocrite. so what? if people minded their own business a little more maybe these things wouldnt cause so many melt downs. it just shows that even those pushing the 'lockdown' agenda are happy to bend the 'rules' whilst following some good old common sense.
This feels pretty disingenuous because I simply don't think you're daft enough not to see why 'for everyone's safety it is absolutely essential that absolutely everyone ceases to do this thing I am doing' is problematic for a medical expert to say during a pandemic.
.
No, I dont believe that. I believe adults are able to make their own decisions informed by the relevant information, and applying common sense. If someone wants to go to another property they own, why shouldnt they be allowed to? plenty of people who work away from home are communting each weekend. whats the difference? theyre not coming into contact with anyone, theyre following the rules on distancing.
And yet when the UK public was first told to isolate the first thing they did that VERY weekend was all head out to the same countryside spots. This is also after weeks of other countries showing how to isolate; media; TV etc.... the idea and theory if isolation was very clearly spelled out and yet many chose not to isolate and tried to continue as normal. Even if when they got to the destination they were trying to keep away its hard to impossible if your'e all using the same carpark; same toilets etc...
Also I think the key difference is that she took the risk of non-essential travel whilst at the same time telling others not to do it. She was telling the whole population to do X and she went and did X.
also, no one was told to isolate (except those showing symptoms) we were told to social distance. in fact, we still are.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I agree, some people are dumb, and lots of people did disregard the initial guidance. so bring in the emergency bill. great, I dont have a problem with that. what I have a problem with is when those tasked with enforcing the 'guidelines' apply the mentality that everyone is at that same level of stupidity, and treat everyone as such.
And like I said, yeah shes a hypocrite, but shes telling people what shes supposed to, but obviously feels like she needed a break from that environment, I personally dont see that an an issue.
Rules without enforcement fast become rules people don't follow all that well if at all.
And if she gets to have a break from the urban environment then - well - doesn't everyone else also deserve a break? At which point we are back to the problem of 70 million people all wanting to go to the countryside for a break at the same time and back to isolation no longer functioning.
but they arent rules, theyre guidelines and advice. the bill actually stated that it could not enforce making people give reasons for going out or travelling (although the actual act reneged on this somewhat) and yeah, they have enforcement powers, but the issue is that theyre using them irresponsibly, and often outright incorrectly. no one has even answered this point yet with anything other than...'well its an emergency, just follow the rules blah blah'
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/05 19:20:00
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I agree, some people are dumb, and lots of people did disregard the initial guidance. so bring in the emergency bill. great, I dont have a problem with that. what I have a problem with is when those tasked with enforcing the 'guidelines' apply the mentality that everyone is at that same level of stupidity, and treat everyone as such.
And like I said, yeah shes a hypocrite, but shes telling people what shes supposed to, but obviously feels like she needed a break from that environment, I personally dont see that an an issue.
It's not to do with people's stupidity in this context, I doubt the CMO of a country is exactly a moron. It's more to do with people's seeming inexhaustible ability to rationalise why the rules don't apply to them, of which you're an absolute fething paragon.
The fact that you have no issue with this is the issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/05 19:19:05
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Jihadin wrote: Sheesh, Alpharius mention Phase two.....might as well start a thread and how and what to get to prepare for that.....remember the TWD dead thread we had so long ago
Well, I was at least hopeful that we'll all be better prepared for Wave Two!
I know I will be, at least - and thankfully I already work from home, so I'm fortunate there...
brilliant , ties in exactly with all the main conspiracy types I know
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
