Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Message added by Grumpy Owl,

This topic is for all general discussion regarding the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are of course numerous other related topics for discussing specific aspects of this pandemic in more detail. And there are other parts of this forum for more 'off-topic' discussions.

Recommended Posts

When the names of SAGE members were first revealed, on 4th May 2020, we didn't get all 52 names. We only got 50 names, as 2 members wished to remain anonymous. Did we ever find out who the secretive duo were? If not, then was there any sound speculation about who they were? I really wanted to know that. 

 

SAGE membership now seems to have swelled to about 80 members, but none seem to be anonymous at this point. However, looking at the related sub-groups, some of which are directly linked to Covid and others probably are indirectly linked to Covid in some way, does reveal a fair few participants wanting to remain anonymous. I wonder whether the secretive duo left or simply dropped into a sub-group? A nice cover, if they just dropped into a sub-group and remained anonymous, as little probably changed in terms of their influence.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups

Edited by numnuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, numnuts said:

When the names of SAGE members were first revealed, on 4th May 2020, we didn't get all 52 names. We only got 50 names, as 2 members wished to remain anonymous. Did we ever find out who the secretive duo were? If not, then was there any sound speculation about who they were? I really wanted to know that. 

 

SAGE membership now seems to have swelled to about 80 members, but none seem to be anonymous at this point. However, looking at the related sub-groups, some of which are directly linked to Covid and others probably are indirectly linked to Covid in some way, does reveal a fair few participants wanting to remain anonymous. I wonder whether the secretive duo left or simply dropped into a sub-group? A nice cover, if they just dropped into a sub-group, as little probably changed in terms of their influence.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups

 

From that link:

Quote

Since SAGE first met in response to COVID-19 on 22 January 2020, it has been grateful for insights from a huge range of sources. At high pace, experts from academic, public sector, industrial and commercial communities have provided the high quality research and information used to formulate advice given to government.

Listed here are the names of participants who provided input as experts at one or more meetings, including public servants who acted in an expert capacity.

 

🤔🙃😆

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grumpy Owl said:

From that link:

 

Real translation being 'a load of greedy, immoral, malleable gits banded together to feather their own nests, all in the name of public service and patriotism'. 

 

Patriotism - 'Last bastion of the scoundrel. First bastion of SAGE.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pete675 said:

The whole concept is so fantastical it makes the other conspiracy theory about a man in cave in Afghanistan using two planes to demolish three towers appear comparatively sensible.

I think its somewhat on the same level of absurdity as this fakedemic:

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sit down, Waldo said:

This is about par for the course from our local media...

 

A city under Covid siege

 

Yeah, the Reach-owned local rags like my own Birmingham Mail really know how to over-egg things.

 

I've never been to Hull, but I imagine daily life is pretty much as normal, and certainly not the same reality as presented by Hull Daily Mail.

 

I like how they managed to speak with one of the 'top medical professionals' in the hospital, a "linen operative" 😆

 

 

Meanwhile, in 'lighter news', here's a story warning about "fake coronavirus vaccines":

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/coronavirus-vaccine-fraud-warning-issued-19281080

 

Coronavirus vaccine fraud warning issued to everybody in the UK

The National Crime Agency (NCA) in the UK are urging Brits to exercise caution amid fears fake coronavirus vaccines could become a threat

 

Aren't they all 'fake'? 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, allymisfit said:

That's an interesting question! As in offspring? 

This is far beyond what I learned in genetics though lol. 

 

I would imagine it could potentially? But if it's done synthetically, what risks will it bring? (by this I mean I can only imagine it will be full of risks) 

This I shall ponder!

Don’t know if vaccine can pass on genetically. Where I live it’s bad enough the spread of natural genetics.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the  Health Professionals start to question things the whole scam will fall apart. 

 

Its starting now, a good article in the British Medical Journal written by the Editor. 

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

 

Kamran Abbasi, executive editor

  • When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

    Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

     

    Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

     

    The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency.2 The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.34

     

    Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report.56 Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”7

     

    Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19.8 The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests.9 It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.1011

    The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 

     

    Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

     

    Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

     

    Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump’s government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.15 Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.16

     

    The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.17 Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.18

     

    How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.

     

    Once transparency and accountability are established as norms, individuals employed by government should ideally only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests. Expertise is possible without competing interests. If such a strict rule becomes impractical, minimum good practice is that people with competing interests must not be involved in decisions on products and policies in which they have a financial interest.

    Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement.19

    The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

    Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

    • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

    This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

    https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

    I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

 

Edited by Alnitak
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, pete675 said:

 

She looks like Greta Thingyberg's  more attractive and less weird sister.  Whatever happened to the earlier hoax, global warming? Does anyone miss it yet? And ISIS too.

 

Welcome to Planet Bullshita, where the elites keep on lying, and the proles keep lapping on it up.

 

She reminds me of Donald Pleasance daughter Angela

ap4.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sexpistol50 said:

She reminds me of Donald Pleasance daughter Angela

ap4.png

 

I did like that little story. Talking about Donald Pleasance, he recently joined the freemasons and won a load cash with Clarkson on 'Who wants to be a millionaire?'.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common Purpose - charity with private agenda...

The meeting went along the lines of:

 

There is an influenza virus currently affecting the world which is the real health issue but it is ultimately nothing to be overly concerned about plainly speaking.

People were knowingly wrongly given the wrong flu jab across the UK in winter 2019 following event 201, this resulted in inflammation of the larynx and people complained of having the sensation of broken glass in their throats.

 

Following this, the rhetoric of covid 19 was spun as a virus which could attack immune systems and hence the associated panic until society was shut down resulting in Scenario (1). Scenario (1) resulted in the now well-known campaign Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives and the adoption of social distancing.

 

Covid 19 deaths are being caused by external issues such as weak immune systems, smoking, alcohol dependency, mental health issues and cancer and that people with these pre-existing conditions would have been susceptible to death anyway...

 

It was stated that the media would start an “enforcement campaign” in September which would pull no punches and be as “dishonestly honest” about speaking of covid 19 were people to ignore the advice. Considerations for sentencing offenders could range from a £5,000.00 fine to 18 months imprisonment both

 

 

https://www.carolinestephens.net/post/common-purpose-charity-with-private-agenda-yet-agenda-is-anything-but-neutral-taxpayers-beware

 

 

some excerpts form a vid posted last night, its actually  easier to read the article than view the vid.!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

When the  Health Professionals start to question things the whole scam will fall apart. 

 

Its starting now, a good article in the British Medical Journal written by the Editor. 

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

 

Kamran Abbasi, executive editor

    1. It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.1011

     

 


hmmm,  ‘suboptimal PCR test’  , I notice here if you follow the reference they are talking false negatives rather than the true blight , which is of course false positives.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

Common Purpose - charity with private agenda...

The meeting went along the lines of:

 

There is an influenza virus currently affecting the world which is the real health issue but it is ultimately nothing to be overly concerned about plainly speaking.

People were knowingly wrongly given the wrong flu jab across the UK in winter 2019 following event 201, this resulted in inflammation of the larynx and people complained of having the sensation of broken glass in their throats.

 

Following this, the rhetoric of covid 19 was spun as a virus which could attack immune systems and hence the associated panic until society was shut down resulting in Scenario (1). Scenario (1) resulted in the now well-known campaign Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives and the adoption of social distancing.

 

Covid 19 deaths are being caused by external issues such as weak immune systems, smoking, alcohol dependency, mental health issues and cancer and that people with these pre-existing conditions would have been susceptible to death anyway...

 

It was stated that the media would start an “enforcement campaign” in September which would pull no punches and be as “dishonestly honest” about speaking of covid 19 were people to ignore the advice. Considerations for sentencing offenders could range from a £5,000.00 fine to 18 months imprisonment both

 

 

https://www.carolinestephens.net/post/common-purpose-charity-with-private-agenda-yet-agenda-is-anything-but-neutral-taxpayers-beware

 

 

some excerpts form a vid posted last night, its actually  easier to read the article than view the vid.!

Yeah I watched this. She claims that if you've been looking at conspiracy theories online that you face the above £5k fine, banned from internet use for 5-10 years, plus community service. 🤔😒 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Yeah I watched this. She claims that if you've been looking at conspiracy theories online that you face the above £5k fine, banned from internet use for 5-10 years, plus community service. 🤔😒 

 

It took me ages to get it working, 3 different browsers before it played.

None of what she says would surprise me now.

That I could be imprisoned for writing on this very site..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

 

It took me ages to get it working, 3 different browsers before it played.

None of what she says would surprise me now.

That I could be imprisoned for writing on this very site..

It wouldn't surprise me either, but at this juncture, it's a stretch. Let's put it into perspective, how many of us here are in a family where you're the only one who's into this kind of thing? Hazarding a guess, it's probably 8/9 out of 10 of us on here. 

 

So, first of all, they bring this in. As far as I am concerned the law is not retrospective so cannot apply until it's law. Easy then, you pack it in when it comes in. They can't prosecute for before that point, so it would seem silly to bring it in. On top of that, every ISP would be snitching on all their customers. Well, they'll have no customers left. I can only see a China style blocking of websites, I cannot foresee what she is saying as its way beyond what would be reasonable now. 

 

That's not to say it won't come in eventually, it just won't be anytime soon I don't think. Not beyond the realms of possibility, I just think she's fear mongering and I don't believe her info is credible. 👍🏻

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popped in to a local shop earlier for some tobacco, saw some pringles on a deal so grabbed a box along with a wee cider to wash them down. 

 

Approaching the counter there was a large floppy signage thing on the floor along with an empty basket. I lent over it to place said items down and ask the lady why? Looked like they were placed for a leak I thought but it was a basket not a bucket!

 

Lady barks at me about corona virus pandemic, 2 meters etc, I said I’d never seen it before in the shop, but she insisted it’s always there when she’s working.

 

Anyways... she tells me “That’ll be £19.84 😂😂😂

 

Me.. “I’d like the receipt for that thanks🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...