Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

Duty281 wrote:I'm asking if people who support the right to vote at 16 also support 16 year olds being able to serve on juries, buy alcohol etc. If they do, then at least it's logically consistent, although I disagree with it. But for those who don't - why is this?

No one wants to give this a bash? Or does hardly anyone on here support votes at 16?

Then it would be logically consistent for 18 year olds that can vote to be able to adopt and drive heavy duty vehicles but they aren't considered old enough....

Anomalies are part of life....I can decide which Party's offer best suits me with out the need to be getting hammered on a Saturday night...

Voting and drinking aren't mutually exclusive..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.  

I thought it was against site rules to have an alias?

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.  

I thought it was against site rules to have an alias?  

Eh?

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.  

I thought it was against site rules to have an alias?  

Can the mods check to see if I have any aliases......Put the girly boys out of their misery on the Tea party thread.

'Girly boys'. I don't know how I'll cope.

I see Ruth Kelly who was a mainstay in the Blair Govt is advocating water bills going up as Shareholders need to be properly recompensed and People at the top who help run these organisations need extortionate wages so they can be attracted to these jobs...

You wonder why People aren't enthusiastic about this Blair-charisma vacuum running Labour now.

Apparently there is a standard of living crisis going on.....Somebody tell these Blairites.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.  

I thought it was against site rules to have an alias?  

Can the mods check to see if I have any aliases......Put the girly boys out of their misery on the Tea party thread.

Easy T-Bone, I wasn't accusing you. I just though there were some similarities in the Goon-2's post to certain posts written by the Golf board's most enthusiastic Incel.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.  

I thought it was against site rules to have an alias?  

Can the mods check to see if I have any aliases......Put the girly boys out of their misery on the Tea party thread.

Easy T-Bone, I wasn't accusing you.  I just though there were some similarities in the Goon-2's post to certain posts written by the Golf board's most enthusiastic Incel.  

Eh? What would be the point in having an alias if not to give the impression of 2 or more agreeing with a position? Why would I have 2 accounts that never interact? I'm sure the mods can confirm this isn't the case, but I'm baffled by the your thought process. You really aren't that bright are you?

the-goon2 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

No one is talking about because both the government and opposition let it happen.

Inflation was caused by shutting down economy (which labour supported, and wanted a harsher one), money printing to pay for shutting down the economy (labour's harsher shutdown would have meant more gov spending). More money in circulation and less goods to purchase = inflation.

Not to mention decades of braindead energy policy. is no coincidence that France has the lowest inflation, the cheapest energy and the most Nuclear plants.  

I thought it was against site rules to have an alias?  

Can the mods check to see if I have any aliases......Put the girly boys out of their misery on the Tea party thread.

Easy T-Bone, I wasn't accusing you.  I just though there were some similarities in the Goon-2's post to certain posts written by the Golf board's most enthusiastic Incel.  

Eh? What would be the point in having an alias if not to give the impression of 2 or more agreeing with a position? Why would I have 2 accounts that never interact? I'm sure the mods can confirm this isn't the case, but I'm baffled by the your thought process. You really aren't that bright are you?

That's a shame.

Address one of my arguments without petty name calling once. Just try it if you can.

the-goon2 wrote:Address one of my arguments without petty name calling once. Just try it if you can.

Ok. I didn't call you a name. How's that for a counter-point?

the-goon2 wrote:Address one of my arguments without petty name calling once. Just try it if you can.

Isn't saying 'You really aren't that bright are you?' also petty? Hypocrite much?

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Address one of my arguments without petty name calling once. Just try it if you can.

Isn't saying 'You really aren't that bright are you?' also petty? Hypocrite much?

You just need to see his replies to my posts to see where i'm coming from. He is incapable of addressing my points, so it's my opinion of him rather than a straight up ad hom, which he uses instead addressing arguments.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Address one of my arguments without petty name calling once. Just try it if you can.

Isn't saying 'You really aren't that bright are you?' also petty? Hypocrite much?

You just need to see his replies to my posts to see where i'm coming from. He is incapable of addressing my points, so it's my opinion of him rather than a straight up ad hom, which he uses instead addressing arguments.

I don't want to or feel the need to address your points.  They're your points and whether or not I agree or disagree with them is irrelevant.  In any event, on the basis of arguments that I've seen you have on the site it would be a waste of my time because you're not interested in alternative points of view.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65671806

Probable by-election coming up in Scotland soon with a SNP MP likely to be recalled. Labour won this seat in 2017, and only lost it in 2019 by a margin of 44.2% to 34.5%. With the SNP in disarray and Labour targeting a recovery in Scotland, this will be another key test for Starmer's Labour and one they should be expected to pass. A win here and they'll be thinking of all the Scottish seats they can win from the SNP in 2024.

Labour have already chosen their candidate, despite the by-election not even being formally announced yet, and it seems there's been more angst about how they chose their candidate, with a Labour councillor in the area saying that the three most popular local choices were blocked in favour of the central party's preferred candidate. We have of course heard similar stories in previous by-elections, such as in Wakefield.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-councillor-claims-rutherglen-hamilton-29869213

superflyweight wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Address one of my arguments without petty name calling once. Just try it if you can.

Isn't saying 'You really aren't that bright are you?' also petty? Hypocrite much?

You just need to see his replies to my posts to see where i'm coming from. He is incapable of addressing my points, so it's my opinion of him rather than a straight up ad hom, which he uses instead addressing arguments.

I don't want to or feel the need to address your points.  They're your points and whether or not I agree or disagree with them is irrelevant.  In any event, on the basis of arguments that I've seen you have on the site it would be a waste of my time because you're not interested in alternative points of view.  

Funny how those acting so tough end up being so easily upset

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65671806

Probable by-election coming up in Scotland soon with a SNP MP likely to be recalled. Labour won this seat in 2017, and only lost it in 2019 by a margin of 44.2% to 34.5%. With the SNP in disarray and Labour targeting a recovery in Scotland, this will be another key test for Starmer's Labour and one they should be expected to pass. A win here and they'll be thinking of all the Scottish seats they can win from the SNP in 2024.

Labour have already chosen their candidate, despite the by-election not even being formally announced yet, and it seems there's been more angst about how they chose their candidate, with a Labour councillor in the area saying that the three most popular local choices were blocked in favour of the central party's preferred candidate. We have of course heard similar stories in previous by-elections, such as in Wakefield.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-councillor-claims-rutherglen-hamilton-29869213

Must win for Labour if any talk of a resurgence in Scotland is to be taken seriously.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65671806

Probable by-election coming up in Scotland soon with a SNP MP likely to be recalled. Labour won this seat in 2017, and only lost it in 2019 by a margin of 44.2% to 34.5%. With the SNP in disarray and Labour targeting a recovery in Scotland, this will be another key test for Starmer's Labour and one they should be expected to pass. A win here and they'll be thinking of all the Scottish seats they can win from the SNP in 2024.

Labour have already chosen their candidate, despite the by-election not even being formally announced yet, and it seems there's been more angst about how they chose their candidate, with a Labour councillor in the area saying that the three most popular local choices were blocked in favour of the central party's preferred candidate. We have of course heard similar stories in previous by-elections, such as in Wakefield.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-councillor-claims-rutherglen-hamilton-29869213

Must win for Labour if any talk of a resurgence in Scotland is to be taken seriously.

It'll be interesting, but not sure I see overturning ~10% as a given, or a complete failure if doesn't happen. Some SNP voters might well be annoyed at recent shenanigans, but Labour fundamentally aren't pro-independence, so not sure it should be a given that they'd win any such by-election like this.
Would expect Labour to improve on the difference from last time, but not necessarily to turn any such seat red. Would think might depend on other non-independence issues north of the border, but won't hold my breath that avowed pro-independence voters will be able to see much past the fact Labour won't support their bid.

The SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland at the last GE and they're now polling on average around 37/38% in Scotland (for Westminster elections); while Labour got 18.6% of the vote in Scotland at the last GE and they're now polling on average around 31% in Scotland.

So when the constituency was last contested the SNP performed pretty much in line with their overall national voting % (45% nationally v 44.2% in the constituency), while Labour did much better in the constituency than in Scotland (18.6% nationally v 34.5% in the constituency) which indicates that this is a favourable seat for Labour.

That, coupled with the SNP's slight decline and Labour's resurgence, should mean that Labour win this seat if a by-election is held, but it's not a complete open goal because Labour cannot expect much tactical voting to favour them (with the Tories a complete non-factor in this election; they'll probably be battling to save the deposit), and the SNP will try to turn any contest into a battle for independence v the Westminster elite, or something like that.

I think I would regard it as a failure for Labour if they don't win this potential by-election. This seat requires the 54th smallest swing nationally for Labour to win it, and the 4th smallest in Scotland, so if they don't win here in a by-election it doesn't look as though they will be making much of a dent in Scotland at the next GE against the SNP.

Agree that this bye election will be very important both in understanding how much trouble the SNP are in after their difficulties, and also in whether this will translate to a swing to Labour.
If Labour have serious aspirations to taking a Westminster majority at the next election, they are going to need to swing a fair few seats in Scotland their way, and this is the first test of where they are in this regard.

By elections are always a struggle for incumbents...So the SNP are up against it...

Biggest problem for them though is that Sturgeon was a great politician.....Looked tough...Had a dry wit and actually came across as caring whether she was or wasn't....

You look at Starmer and Sunak...it's all faux outrage and people see it a mile off...

Salmond and Sturgeon after him were people you could get behind.....Now the SNP is devoid of that charisma...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:By elections are always a struggle for incumbents...So the SNP are up against it...

Biggest problem for them though is that Sturgeon was a great politician.....Looked tough...Had a dry wit and actually came across as caring whether she was or wasn't....

You look at Starmer and Sunak...it's all faux outrage and people see it a mile off...

Salmond and Sturgeon after him were people you could get behind.....Now the SNP is devoid of that charisma...

Just don't bend over in front of him if you don't have a Y chromosome.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:By elections are always a struggle for incumbents...So the SNP are up against it...

Biggest problem for them though is that Sturgeon was a great politician.....Looked tough...Had a dry wit and actually came across as caring whether she was or wasn't....

You look at Starmer and Sunak...it's all faux outrage and people see it a mile off...

Salmond and Sturgeon after him were people you could get behind.....Now the SNP is devoid of that charisma...

Just don't bend over in front of him if you don't have a Y chromosome.  

Nothing for you to worry about then....

The Government doesn't want to share Boris Johnson's WhatsApp messages with the Covid inquiry. Rishi Sunak is also committed to transparency.

Go figure.

Who on here actually supported the lockdowns, the restrictions on basic freedoms and the creation of a 2 tier society based on vaccination?

the-goon2 wrote:Who on here actually supported the lockdowns, the restrictions on basic freedoms and the creation of a 2 tier society based on vaccination?

The basic freedom of not dying? The most fundamental of freedoms and far more important than being able to do as one wishes.

To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea......Most at risk were over 80s and lockdown has had a huge affect on Mental health.....Jobs....Education....Inflation..

Standard of living has hit rock botom for many added to a stupid EU withdrawal......

Country is going to be suffering the consequences for decades to come...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea.

Yep, many of us said so at the time. Now we have to live with the excess deaths, economic damage, plus all the other harms that resulted from this short-sightedness. A wide-ranging paper on these harms was released earlier this month: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447806

The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:Who on here actually supported the lockdowns, the restrictions on basic freedoms and the creation of a 2 tier society based on vaccination?

The basic freedom of not dying? The most fundamental of freedoms and far more important than being able to do as one wishes.

There were 0 deaths during lockdown?

Lockdowns were the lesser of two evils, especially pre-vaccination. We werent even remotely ready for that many people getting sick at once, we also had the worst possible government in place after nearly a decade of Tories running public services into the ground.

the-goon2 wrote:Who on here actually supported the lockdowns, the restrictions on basic freedoms and the creation of a 2 tier society based on vaccination?

I did. More than happy to have done so.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea.

Yep, many of us said so at the time. Now we have to live with the excess deaths, economic damage, plus all the other harms that resulted from this short-sightedness. A wide-ranging paper on these harms was released earlier this month: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447806

The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level.

Big deal. This is irrelevant, and we've had this debate before. This was a totally new, airborne, human pathogen. What we know now, was not what we knew then. Having 20-20 hindsight isn't that clever.

The study you quote, and those like it, can be used to inform future responses to pandemics. That said, I don't think there'll be any different responses because we won't know enough about any new pathogen.

TBH, we're screwed w/ any lethal airborne pathogen. Any response such as isolation, lockdowns etc will be too late and will always be behind the spread of infection.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea.

Yep, many of us said so at the time. Now we have to live with the excess deaths, economic damage, plus all the other harms that resulted from this short-sightedness. A wide-ranging paper on these harms was released earlier this month: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447806

The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level.

Big deal. This is irrelevant, and we've had this debate before. This was a totally new, airborne, human pathogen. What we know now, was not what we knew then. Having 20-20 hindsight isn't that clever.

The study you quote, and those like it, can be used to inform future responses to pandemics. That said, I don't think there'll be any different responses because we won't know enough about any new pathogen.

TBH, we're screwed w/ any lethal airborne pathogen. Any response such as isolation, lockdowns etc will be too late and will always be behind the spread of infection.

Certainly not irrelevant. And, as before, it wasn't hindsight, but foresight. We* knew in March 2020 (possibly April) exactly who the at-risk groups were, and we knew that a lockdown on the scale enacted was grossly disproportionate to the actual threat, and we knew that the harms that would result from lockdown would be greater than the potential harms from Covid. The damage is now being felt and accounted for.

*You may not have done, I'm unsure.

We were aware of the most at risk groups which is almost always going to be the same group, what we didn't was the potential effect on the less at risk groups. Your whole argument has and always will be based on hindsight, this information simply was not known in March 2020.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea.

Yep, many of us said so at the time. Now we have to live with the excess deaths, economic damage, plus all the other harms that resulted from this short-sightedness. A wide-ranging paper on these harms was released earlier this month: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447806

The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level.

Big deal. This is irrelevant, and we've had this debate before. This was a totally new, airborne, human pathogen. What we know now, was not what we knew then. Having 20-20 hindsight isn't that clever.

The study you quote, and those like it, can be used to inform future responses to pandemics. That said, I don't think there'll be any different responses because we won't know enough about any new pathogen.

TBH, we're screwed w/ any lethal airborne pathogen. Any response such as isolation, lockdowns etc will be too late and will always be behind the spread of infection.

Certainly not irrelevant. And, as before, it wasn't hindsight, but foresight. We* knew in March 2020 (possibly April) exactly who the at-risk groups were, and we knew that a lockdown on the scale enacted was grossly disproportionate to the actual threat, and we knew that the harms that would result from lockdown would be greater than the potential harms from Covid. The damage is now being felt and accounted for.

*You may not have done, I'm unsure.

Well, it's hard to disagree that we wouldn't all be mentally and financially better off if we'd let a couple more million old and/or fat people die.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea.

Yep, many of us said so at the time. Now we have to live with the excess deaths, economic damage, plus all the other harms that resulted from this short-sightedness. A wide-ranging paper on these harms was released earlier this month: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447806

The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level.

Big deal. This is irrelevant, and we've had this debate before. This was a totally new, airborne, human pathogen. What we know now, was not what we knew then. Having 20-20 hindsight isn't that clever.

The study you quote, and those like it, can be used to inform future responses to pandemics. That said, I don't think there'll be any different responses because we won't know enough about any new pathogen.

TBH, we're screwed w/ any lethal airborne pathogen. Any response such as isolation, lockdowns etc will be too late and will always be behind the spread of infection.

Certainly not irrelevant. And, as before, it wasn't hindsight, but foresight. We* knew in March 2020 (possibly April) exactly who the at-risk groups were, and we knew that a lockdown on the scale enacted was grossly disproportionate to the actual threat, and we knew that the harms that would result from lockdown would be greater than the potential harms from Covid. The damage is now being felt and accounted for.

*You may not have done, I'm unsure.

Wrong, but you won't change your position, so we're done with this.

Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:To be honest I'm not sure lockdown was such a good idea.

Yep, many of us said so at the time. Now we have to live with the excess deaths, economic damage, plus all the other harms that resulted from this short-sightedness. A wide-ranging paper on these harms was released earlier this month: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447806

The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level.

Big deal. This is irrelevant, and we've had this debate before. This was a totally new, airborne, human pathogen. What we know now, was not what we knew then. Having 20-20 hindsight isn't that clever.

The study you quote, and those like it, can be used to inform future responses to pandemics. That said, I don't think there'll be any different responses because we won't know enough about any new pathogen.

TBH, we're screwed w/ any lethal airborne pathogen. Any response such as isolation, lockdowns etc will be too late and will always be behind the spread of infection.

Certainly not irrelevant. And, as before, it wasn't hindsight, but foresight. We* knew in March 2020 (possibly April) exactly who the at-risk groups were, and we knew that a lockdown on the scale enacted was grossly disproportionate to the actual threat, and we knew that the harms that would result from lockdown would be greater than the potential harms from Covid. The damage is now being felt and accounted for.

*You may not have done, I'm unsure.

Wrong, but you won't change your position, so we're done with this.

None of this is wrong and, sadly, history will prove me right.

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Duty281 wrote:...history will prove me right.

That's the main thing.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Lockdown wasn't great but was the lesser of two evils. You obviously missed the line about how they should have been triggered faster which would have allowed them to end faster. I do appreciate how very unfortunate that all the actual experts in highly infectious diseases didn't have your foresight.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:...history will prove me right.

That's the main thing.

Imagine being the type of self-satisfied, arrogant, uninformed w*nker that would use the phrase "history will prove me right"?

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Lockdown wasn't great but was the lesser of two evils. You obviously missed the line about how they should have been triggered faster which would have allowed them to end faster. I do appreciate how very unfortunate that all the actual experts in highly infectious diseases didn't have your foresight.

Some experts supported lockdown in the manner enacted. Other experts didn't. It wasn't 'all the actual experts' who believed lockdown in the manner enacted was correct.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:...history will prove me right.

That's the main thing.

...and also purely a chance outcome re. Duty's expert insight on this.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Lockdown wasn't great but was the lesser of two evils. You obviously missed the line about how they should have been triggered faster which would have allowed them to end faster. I do appreciate how very unfortunate that all the actual experts in highly infectious diseases didn't have your foresight.

Some experts supported lockdown in the manner enacted. Other experts didn't. It wasn't 'all the actual experts' who believed lockdown in the manner enacted was correct.

Which just goes to show that the knowledge for a uniform consensus wasn't there at the time, even amongst those far more expert in this area than you'll ever be, no matter what you might think.

Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Lockdowns were not the problem- and the alternative would have been much worse. It is hard to get a handle on what happened in places like Iran and there was a real danger of bodies in the street.

You have to understand that we didn't know how lethal it was going to be. There was a trade off - how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom'. Of course we are all happier if it is someone else doing the dying, so it might be better to ask how many of your family were you prepared to lose for the sake of 'freedom'. Quite frankly we still don't know the long term impact of Covid, because it is still killing people and leaving others sick for months, years, who knows how long.

The problem with the lockdowns were that they were enacted too late and then ran on for too long because they then had to. They were handled clumsily, because some tw@t said we should take it on the chin.

To be honest looking back on the pandemic with the benefit of vaccines, with the impact of the things we did to save people having some value and then apparently declaring it was no big deal is the kind of attitude which only deserves contempt.

The trade off isn't 'how many dead people are you prepared to accept for 'freedom''; but the trade off was 'how many people are we going to save from lockdown v how many people are going to die from lockdown, with a slight side helping of how many people are going to have a vastly reduced quality of life from lockdown'.

Lockdown wasn't great but was the lesser of two evils. You obviously missed the line about how they should have been triggered faster which would have allowed them to end faster. I do appreciate how very unfortunate that all the actual experts in highly infectious diseases didn't have your foresight.

Some experts supported lockdown in the manner enacted. Other experts didn't. It wasn't 'all the actual experts' who believed lockdown in the manner enacted was correct.

Which just goes to show that the knowledge for a uniform consensus wasn't there at the time, even amongst those far more expert in this area than you'll ever be, no matter what you might think.

Wrong.

But I thought you were done with it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Thank goodness.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is there anybody far more expert than Duty? After all, history will prove him right.

Thank goodness.

Be sure to let us know where they should put the statue.