Coronavirus Thread

[Houdini Logic]

IMO I advise anyone who wants to understand the Government's real agenda to watch this 4 part documentary: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p00ghx6g/the-century-of-the-self

 

It was created 20 years ago to explain how Governments use psychology and public relations to manipulate and control the masses. 

 

[Dunge]

I recall “governments using psychology to control the masses” from years ago. Only back then it was just called “spin”. This is not a great, new discovery. It’s been around under some name or other for as long as democracy.

[Heathrow fox]

2 hours ago, Harrydc said:

This is exactly my point about how fear is rammed down our throats in an attempt to make us compliant. 

 

The MSM are constantly reporting deaths, R rates, cases. They never report how many have recovered, how many have left hospital etc. Its always the negatives. 

Make your mind up.You’ve been arguing that we’ve been in lockdown for large parts of the last 15 months.,when for many many millions we’ve had no such thing.

[leicsmac]

OK, here's what I don't really get about the last page or two of discussion - could be extended to the entire argument regarding Covid conspiracies tbh:

 

Governments of nation-states do heinous stuff. That isn't in question, and there are numerous examples of conspiracies where governments or other powerful groups have taken advantage of events in order to manipulate and gain further control.

 

However...conspiracies, at their heart, are all about the aforementioned power and control, and so, with that in mind; why plan a conspiracy around a natural event over which you have limited or even no control, like this virus? Yes, the vaccine has it under control (we think) at the present time, but there's no guarantee that it would remain so in the future; an unlikely but possible scenario is a new variant mutating in a way that kills everyone it infects and is resistant to vaccines (I said unlikely, but it is possible). So, with that uncertainty in mind, why hatch a conspiracy that has so much uncertainty based on matters one can't really control? It would be so much easier and probably more effective to come up with a much more human boogeyman (OMG ISIL TERRORRIST RUNNNNNN, for instance) as a means to increase control over a populace, if one so desired - it's worked pretty often before, after all.

 

I think the same way about folks that think action against climate change is being used as a means to control people. Why start a conspiracy involving elements that are not controlled by you, if your ultimate goal is increased power and control?

 

So,to any conspiracists out there on this one: where's the pork?

[Babylon]

9 hours ago, Soup said:

I read an article earlier about how the 50 majority Muslim countries had lower deaths and cases than the 50 richest non Muslim countries. Pretty interesting and I wonder why? Unless they haven't got the memo 

Because they don’t have the reporting and if the population ask for information they get told to f*** off.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Because they don’t have the reporting and if the population ask for information they get told to f*** off.

This. Reported cases and deaths only mean anything if there is the infrastructure there to report them as fully as possible. That's far from always the case.

[Babylon]

7 hours ago, Harrydc said:

This is exactly my point about how fear is rammed down our throats in an attempt to make us compliant. 

 

The MSM are constantly reporting deaths, R rates, cases. They never report how many have recovered, how many have left hospital etc. Its always the negatives. 

But the media always focuses on the negatives, it’s not a new thing. They don’t report on car crashes that didn’t kill someone etc.

 

As for compliance, yeah they use tactics to try and sway people. But when you are dealing with a dangerous virus and you need people to do things, then they are going to give people a nudge. Especially when half of social media is now full of disinformation coming the other way, that’s getting lapped up and parroted.

[Soup]

50 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Because they don’t have the reporting and if the population ask for information they get told to f*** off.

Maybe or is it that when the west knocked on their door asking them to come out to play they were told to **** off. Your guess is as good as mine

 

I think they'll get the same response when offered them big bags of vaccines. Which might F up the plan of vaccinating the world

[Col city fan]

Regarding bumbling Boris, I say again that any nation is on shit street if there is no viable alternative to the current administration. Boris and his bunch of toffs can do as badly as they like.... who’s going to really bother?

The Labour Party need to sort their shit out and become electable again. I don’t think people have warmed much to Starmer and something has to happen to make the electorate believe in them 

Edited 17 June 2021 by Col city fan

[Facecloth]

16 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Regarding bumbling Boris, I say again that any nation is on shit street if there is no viable alternative to the current administration. Boris and his bunch of toffs can do as badly as they like.... who’s going to really bother?

The Labour Party need to sort their shit out and become electable again. I don’t think people have warmed much to Starmer and something has to happen to make the electorate believe in them 

It's funny how we hold the two main parties to different standards. Apparently its up to Labour to make themselves electable again, and and slight failing on there part is seen as reason enough to run off and vote tory. But the tories don't need to "make themselves electable" and years and years of mismanagement, corruption and lies is ignored, and nobody abandons them for Labour. If people don't believe in Starmer fine, but why the **** do they believe in Johnson?

 

Seems one has to make themselves electable, whilst the other can do almost anything without becoming unelectable.

[z-layrex]

11 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It's funny how we hold the two main parties to different standards. Apparently its up to Labour to make themselves electable again, and and slight failing on there part is seen as reason enough to run off and vote tory. But the tories don't need to "make themselves electable" and years and years of mismanagement, corruption and lies is ignored, and nobody abandons them for Labour. If people don't believe in Starmer fine, but why the **** do they believe in Johnson?

 

Seems one has to make themselves electable, whilst the other can do almost anything without becoming unelectable.

I personally dont vote Labour at the moment because the party is likely still saturated in leftist momentum nutcases and anti-semites.

[FLAN]

12 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It's funny how we hold the two main parties to different standards. Apparently its up to Labour to make themselves electable again, and and slight failing on there part is seen as reason enough to run off and vote tory. But the tories don't need to "make themselves electable" and years and years of mismanagement, corruption and lies is ignored, and nobody abandons them for Labour. If people don't believe in Starmer fine, but why the **** do they believe in Johnson?

 

Seems one has to make themselves electable, whilst the other can do almost anything without becoming unelectable.

There’s a massive cult around Brexit that seems hard to pull people away from. 
johnson wouldn’t have got near running the country 15-20 years ago but enough people seem to be swayed by image and sound bites these days to allow it to happen 

honestly not sure there’s any going back either when you still see them so far ahead in polls after this shitshow 

[Legend_in_blue]

How convenient.

[ealingfox]

14 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

I personally dont vote Labour at the moment because the party is likely still saturated in leftist momentum nutcases and anti-semites.

 

Congratulations on proving his point emphatically.

[z-layrex]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

Congratulations on proving his point emphatically.

Not really?

[Col city fan]

36 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It's funny how we hold the two main parties to different standards. Apparently its up to Labour to make themselves electable again, and and slight failing on there part is seen as reason enough to run off and vote tory. But the tories don't need to "make themselves electable" and years and years of mismanagement, corruption and lies is ignored, and nobody abandons them for Labour. If people don't believe in Starmer fine, but why the **** do they believe in Johnson?

 

Seems one has to make themselves electable, whilst the other can do almost anything without becoming unelectable.

Wrongly, that’s just how it is though FC

I know it’s off topic but I remember talking to my (now sadly deceased) Nana when New Labour were springing up. She’d voted Tory all her life but when I asked her whether she was taken in by Blair and all the spin, she genuinely told me she was going to vote for Blair because ‘she liked the look of him.. he’s a good looking man’..

As much as I was happy there was life in the old gal (she was mid 70’s then), I did have to question her motives!

This matters... Starmer comes across as quite austere I think, whereas I think many people just warm to Boris.

People’s voting habits are just so random and I think are quite rarely based on manifesto’s and the such like

 

Edited 17 June 2021 by Col city fan

[Nick]

15 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Wrongly, that’s just how it is though FC

I know it’s off topic but I remember talking to my (now sadly deceased) Nana when New Labour were springing up. She’d voted Tory all her life but when I asked her whether she was taken in by Blair and all the spin, she genuinely told me she was going to vote for Blair because ‘she liked the look of him.. he’s a good looking man’..

As much as I was happy there was life in the old gal (she was mid 70’s then), I did have to question her motives!

This matters... Starmer comes across as quite austere I think, whereas I think many people just warm to Boris.

People’s voting habits are just so random and I think are quite rarely based on manifesto’s and the such like

 

That’s very true. Starmer was the best pick of a bad bunch and hasn’t got a chance with the standard of his shadow cabinet. But when you look and listen to him, despite his legal background and his obvious competence, in PMQ’s he lacks charismatic human likability and I can’t help but feel that it looks like there’s a strong chance that he’s actually perhaps a robot of sorts but I’m unsure who’s operating him.

[yorkie1999]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

OK, here's what I don't really get about the last page or two of discussion - could be extended to the entire argument regarding Covid conspiracies tbh:

 

Governments of nation-states do heinous stuff. That isn't in question, and there are numerous examples of conspiracies where governments or other powerful groups have taken advantage of events in order to manipulate and gain further control.

 

However...conspiracies, at their heart, are all about the aforementioned power and control, and so, with that in mind; why plan a conspiracy around a natural event over which you have limited or even no control, like this virus? Yes, the vaccine has it under control (we think) at the present time, but there's no guarantee that it would remain so in the future; an unlikely but possible scenario is a new variant mutating in a way that kills everyone it infects and is resistant to vaccines (I said unlikely, but it is possible). So, with that uncertainty in mind, why hatch a conspiracy that has so much uncertainty based on matters one can't really control? It would be so much easier and probably more effective to come up with a much more human boogeyman (OMG ISIL TERRORRIST RUNNNNNN, for instance) as a means to increase control over a populace, if one so desired - it's worked pretty often before, after all.

 

I think the same way about folks that think action against climate change is being used as a means to control people. Why start a conspiracy involving elements that are not controlled by you, if your ultimate goal is increased power and control?

 

So,to any conspiracists out there on this one: where's the pork?

Who’s to say that our world leaders didn’t already have a plan in place to increase their power and control and the button would be pushed in the event of a possible virus pandemic. We’ve had pandemics before so it wouldn’t take too much effort to come to some sort of agreement for when it happened the next time.

Edited 17 June 2021 by yorkie1999

[filbertway]

10 hours ago, Soup said:

No that's the total death rate so far. We're 190

Oh good, I was gonna say. India's recording will be shoddy anyway due to the ridiculous size of the country and lack of technology available to all, so it would be a vast underestimate. The population would have been wiped out in a month at that rate

 

[Babylon]

49 minutes ago, Nick said:

That’s very true. Starmer was the best pick of a bad bunch and hasn’t got a chance with the standard of his shadow cabinet. But when you look and listen to him, despite his legal background and his obvious competence, in PMQ’s he lacks charismatic human likability and I can’t help but feel that it looks like there’s a strong chance that he’s actually perhaps a robot of sorts but I’m unsure who’s operating him.

Labour play too nice as well. Wasn't there some horrific stat about the number of lies told during the election and the tories (just checked 88% of Tory Facebook ads misleading and 0% of labour). 

 

That's what they are against, it's Trump Lite tactics. The second anyone takes over in labour they are hit with a raft of absolute shite posted on social media and they stand almost no chance of getting the "average man" on board. 

 

Trump and Boris got in being "personalities", Labour would have more chance running with Danny bloody Dyer than a politician. 

Edited 17 June 2021 by Babylon

[Sol thewall Bamba]

10 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

The truth will out eventually in this inquiry.  Although if the Cummings debacle is anything to go by, jumping on the locking down sooner bandwagon will signal a missed opportunity in terms of questioning any alternatives.  It will also let Sage off the hook.  It was nice to hear some Tory MPs questioning the narrative today.  They're not all yes people.  Credit to Bridgen and others.  And Steve!

 

 

Any accountability from the people that modelled this incorrectly? Or just a nice cushy government job and a final salary pension?

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

How convenient.

There's a fcking surprise. 

 

And no.mention ever again of this malevolent 'Nepal variant' that was, bizarrely, supposedly rife in Portugal (as obvs Portugal and Nepal are known for their close cultural ties) and used as the excuse for stopping holidays there. 

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

How convenient.

....and of course, the main symptoms for those getting delta variant covid are now a 'runny nose and headache' .....not exactly classic hospitalisation stuff

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/delta-variant-covid-symptoms-include-headaches-sore-throat-and-runny-nose

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

....and of course, the main symptoms for those getting delta variant covid are now a 'runny nose and headache' .....not exactly classic hospitalisation stuff

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/delta-variant-covid-symptoms-include-headaches-sore-throat-and-runny-nose

I mean the main symptom for Alpha was coughing, headache and loss of taste. Not exactly classic hospitalisation stuff.

 

If the main symptom was something that put you in hospital we'd be pretty screwed haha

 

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Who’s to say that our world leaders didn’t already have a plan in place to increase their power and control and the button would be pushed in the event of a possible virus pandemic. We’ve had pandemics before so it wouldn’t take too much effort to come to some sort of agreement for when it happened the next time.

Perhaps so, but that isn't the point.

 

The point is that anyone relying on a "natural" event (like climate change or this virus) to increase their control through conspiracy are relying on an event that by definition will have variables they can't control, as is the case with anything involving nature. So why do it when it has that risk and better options are available?

 

The powers that be can't be simultaneously smart enough to go for conspiracy and foolish enough to not understand the above at the same time.