What Do You Think Today?

[sgt.null]

I'm just trying to fix a point in my mind where all of a sudden the certainties of the world seemed to begin to look shaky.

The advent of social media. That's the point at which we made a hard turn towards insane. It allows all the wrong people too much influence.

And Democrats like Wayfriend will only be too happy to tell us which are the right people.

[mmurphy1968]

And Democrats like Wayfriend will only be too happy to tell us which are the right people.

And people like sgt.null will rudely attack people in a non sequitur response to someone else's post.

[sgt.null]

And Democrats like Wayfriend will only be too happy to tell us which are the right people.

And people like sgt.null will rudely attack people in a non sequitur response to someone else's post.

If I knew who you were, I might have some response.

Why must liberals here act as if Wayfriend is a child who needs to be coddled?

He insists on attacking everyone but we must temper our responses?

Trust me in that I am treating Wayfriend with kindness by not eviscerating him in every post.

It is more than he has ever earned.

So do you wish to introduce yourself now.

[peter]

It already is Av, and will only get worse. I saw an interview with a night club owner who said that he was struggling to find workers who would work at the same rates (ie minimum wage) that European workers were perfectly happy with. Skilled workers could almost name their price in the labour starved market. This, the man said, could only feed back into cost to the consumer - even if the workers could be found. (Incredibly, he said he had voted leave; wtf did he expect!)

But I see that in an opinion poll today for the first time Johnson's rating has fallen into the negative. The so called 'vaccination bounce' that by all accounts he has been enjoying seems to have drained away, leaving people seeing more clearly the real nature of the man they have elected (and who has the job of rescuing the country from the worst economic and social hit we have had since WWII). The Dominic Cummings interview will not have helped the PM: it is reported that well over forty percent of people consider him untrustworthy and a liar. All I can say is if it has taken them this long to realise it, they must have been going around with their heads up their arses for the last few years.

[peter]

Watching the BBC news yesterday - a report on the possible extension of the requirement for 'covid passports' to include large gatherings like festivals and football matches - the views of a number of youngsters were canvassed ostensibly in order to guage how they felt about it.

The first spoken to, a well spoken young girl with an educated turn of phrase was in favour, citing the responsibility of the young to get double vaccinated in order to protect others and slow down the spread of the virus. The second, less articulate, and with no trace of a regional accent was more stoic, but still accepting of it, saying it couldn't hurt and that if that was what was required in order to get the bigger events up and running again then so be it. Lastly, a lad from the north was spoken to. Denim jacketed and with a broad Newcastle accent he rattled out, "I don't see the point like. I mean, where are the missing people. How many people in your street have died of it. Where are the bodies?"

The message being pushed by the way this segment was put together was absolutely clear. The deliberate attempt to connect acceptance of the vaccine with intelligence, refusal, if not to stupidity then at least wayward argument and misunderstanding, was while unspoken, out there on the surface plain for all to see. Along side this, the clear use of dialect and accent to connect the level of compliance with regional areas of the country, without having to explicitly say as much, was not in any way hidden. Thus are the young people being nudged and prodded toward getting their double dose of the vaccine with the deliberate policy of carrot and stick together with divisive and manipulative reporting such as this.

Maybe this is justified in this case, maybe it is not. We can argue this back and forth until the cows come home (and have done so). But my point in recounting this is not so much about the justification or otherwise - but more to point out that it is being done. This was blatant and egregious manipulation of differences between social groupings in order to sway behaviour, and in my mind is not what we might expect from a news service that is run at our, the public's expense, in order presumably to present us with information on current affairs in an unbiased and straightforward manner. I'm afraid that the BBC has lost something very special over the course of this pandemic and has morphed into a state organ more suited to the propoganda machines of old, as seen before the fall of communism. And they seem to have adapted to their new role very well - very well indeed.

[StevieG]

Is this surprising? Haven't "news" sites manipulated stories in the direction that they would like them to be perceived from day dot? Just my opinion, and experience.

[peter]

Maybe so StevieG. In the US (am I right in thinking that's where you are from?) it is possibly the case that all news outlets, print or otherwise, are partisan in their presentation, and this possibly leads them to use 'psyops' tactics to try to manipulate the behaviour of their viewers.

In the UK however, the BBC (and ITV in fairness) used to have a reputation for impartiality, for presentation of the story 'as it was' and letting the people decide for themselves the rights and wrongs of it. I might be wrong (perhaps I'm only now seeing what has always been the case) but I believe that this type of deliberate public manipulation is worse now than it has been at any previous time in my life. Being so it is becoming increasingly difficult to get this impartially presented news that we all desperately need in these difficult times. The internet and airwaves have become a frontline battle in the emergence of new news outlets (think LBC, Double down, Talk radio) all presenting completely and unashamedly partisan opinions on stories that are circulating on the day, and becoming no more than echo chambers for people to tune in to hear views presented in the way that they personally feel about them.

Let's take a story from today's papers.

This morning's Telegraph newspaper reveals for that the figures for covid hospitalisation on a daily basis in the UK have in fact been including those who have been admitted for causes completely non-covid related (some in fact presenting no covid symptoms whatsoever) but have simply tested positive after admission. In the last week alone some fifty six percent of the reported Covid hospitalisations fell into this category.

Now let's look at this piece of information. Firstly, it appears in the Telegraph - effectively the Conservative Government mouthpiece for information it wants to get out there. Second, the Government is currently involved in an experiment with unlocking the country in the face of (what were) sharply rising numbers of infections and against much advice and criticism from the scientific community (oddly, and against all expectations in the face of the reopening, we are suddenly experiencing a drop in the figures of new infections which no-one seems able to explain). So given the Government's vested interest in being seen to have made the correct decision in the lifting of restrictions is it any suprise that this type of story, these types of figures are suddenly coming to the fore in our media? Against this kind of backdrop, easily seen with just a small amount of critical thinking about what is in the news, how is one ever to form an accurate account of what is actually happening out there.

I mean Stevie, you've seen how I've argued about the Covid situation in previous posts without number: this kind of revelation in the Telegraph today should be grist to my mill - but it's not because I can't trust it anymore than I could when the same kind of tricks were being used in the other direction.

[peter]

The papers today, on the strength of seven days of falling Covid infection figures (numbers of people with the virus are said to be barely half of what they were a week ago) and the potential lifting of quarantine requirements on arrivals from the EU and USA, are shouting that the pandemic is "all over bar the shouting".

Well it may be so, and aside from a nagging suspicion that the figures have been extraordinarily cooperative with the Government since the get go in this pandemic (an observation I have made before), this has got to be good news. It would now seem to gainsay all of the scientific opinion that opening up was presumptive at the current time given the prevailing circumstances in terms of the then direction of infection rates. Now the experts who previously, every word they spoke was hung on to and treated as gospel, are "doomsayers and gloom-mongers". Even Professor Neil Ferguson, architect of the notorious Imperial College modelling upon which much of the pandemic response has been based, seems to have recognised which way the wind is blowing, and is quoted in today's papers as being pretty optimistic that we are over the worst of it.

But of course it isn't over is it. Our world is irrevocably changed. Our relationship with the state, previously one in which the individual and his desires were seen as eclipsing that of the central authority, is fundamentally changed. Now the genies of mass coercion and Government by diktat, of lockdown and restriction of movement, are out of the bottle they will not willingly re-enter it. We enter into a world where the use of identity cards and social credit scoring are openly discussed, indeed actually being introduced, where the use of "chain-gangs" is supported by our PM, where our Home Secretary can talk about the mass deportation of people without fear of it ending her career.

MP Steve Baker, formerly best known as an arch brexiteer among the right of the Tories (but the one for whom I personally had the most respect) has taken a stand over the course of the pandemic about the Government's secondment of powers out with its normal remit. I saw a posting by him yesterday in which he spoke of the things I refer to above as previously in the realm of conspiracy theory, but suddenly having to be taken very seriously in the face of the direction of travel we are witnessing. I fully accept that these things can be overplayed and the interpretations placed thereon be far more benign if one is so inclined - but the fact remains that we are, like it or not, in a different place....... and one that I would personally rather not be in.

[StevieG]

Maybe so StevieG. In the US (am I right in thinking that's where you are from?)

Peter! I'm one of her majesty's loyal colonial subjects - Check my location!

<<----

[peter]

Damn! How did I forget that! Grovelling apologies my friend! Must be because of my UK-centric blinkers?

[Skyweir]

And Democrats like Wayfriend will only be too happy to tell us which are the right people.

And people like sgt.null will rudely attack people in a non sequitur response to someone else's post.

[Skyweir]

Is this surprising? Haven't "news" sites manipulated stories in the direction that they would like them to be perceived from day dot? Just my opinion, and experience.

100%

Even despite the admirable journalistic creed.

Some media outlets are not set up to advance knowledge and social awareness but rather possess an information agenda.

[Skyweir]

Damn! How did I forget that! Grovelling apologies my friend! Must be because of my UK-centric blinkers?

Indeed StevieG is one of us … from the paradisiacal land down under

[Skyweir]

What happened to … what do you think today? Has it been renamed?

[Avatar]

Some time ago. Presumably because the title of the thread may no longer have been strictly apropos any longer, although no doubt some may reserve the right to doubt it is now either.

@Null, you should be one of the people glad that we coddle posters...as you too have benefited from the fact.

Thus speaks The Voice of Reason.



Anyway, I think "vaccination passports" are inevitable. And to be honest, I really don't have much issue with the idea in principle.

Seems a sensible measure, especially since the "vaccines" really only seem to mitigate severe symptoms rather than completely protect one from infection.

(Although, on reflection, that means you could well be vaccinated and still infectious, so may be a bit pointless...)

--A

[Skyweir]

100% agree

[peter]

The voice of reason? Bit of a piss take at my own expense. Hoped people would see that but maybe I have spent so much time beating my own drum that I was asking a bit too much! Ah well - it'll do for now.......

[Skyweir]

Well it IS funny - you could try ‘Peter’s Soapbox’ or ‘Me, Myself & I’ lol

But I appreciate that this is much more subtle

[peter]

Let's just skip a couple of posts back to Av's one where he says he is generally in favour of the idea of vaccination passports - but then concedes that as they neither prevent you from getting the virus nor from transmitting it, but merely mitigate the consequences of getting the virus yourself, they might be somewhat pointless.

So what we are saying is that we should introduce a measure whereby people who have exercised their choice not to protect themselves from this virus (for whatever reason, valid or otherwise) should be penalised for not doing so, even though their unvaccinated status will render them no different in terms of their potential for being transmitters than vaccinated people (in fact, they might be a lesser risk because when they have the virus the chances are that they will be sicker and less likely to be abroad anyway), and whose introduction represents a significant step towards the introduction of a more general ID document with all of the societal considerations attached to that...... for no material benefit in terms of the protection of people whatsoever?

Why would you do that?

Edit; After a bit of thought (and a cup of coffee to get my brain working ) it seems that two things arise from this, somewhat unrelated, but worthy of consideration nevertheless.

Firstly, it seems to me that the debate regarding Covid vaccination passports inevitably elides into the question of ID documents more broadly, as it seems to be unrealistic to think that the infrastructure required to introduce such passports would not then, by a form of 'mission creep' be extended to cover other areas, both disease and quite possibly non-disease related (an argument that has been raised by commentators both in the media and in Westminster, opposed to the passports). We in the UK, have traditionally as a nation been vehemently against such an introduction (certainly on the Conservative side of our political divide) and many have argued that it is not a coincidence that the very same people/politicians who were most in favour of ID documents (when the idea was unsuccessfully mooted by I think, the Tony Blair Government) are the ones now pushing for the introduction of Covid passports. But I think (and here I agree with Av) the introduction is all but inevitable - and I also think it is naive to believe that the aforementioned extension of their remit will not occur once they are in situ. Whether we will be the better for this will of course be a matter of opinion, and will depend much upon the trustworthiness of future administrations (in terms of whether they will be able to resist the temptation to use/abuse the potential for control they inevitably give). Only history will provide the answer to this.

The second point arising is more of an observation that comes from my experience with the State Veterinary Service (in an earlier manifestation of my life) pertaining to the control of bovine tuberculosis and its effect on public health. At the time of my involvement (and I believe that this is still the case) the argument against the vaccination of cattle against the tuberculosis causing organism, was that the choice between eradication of the disease and acceptance that it would become endemic (ie always present to a - hopefully small - degree) in a population, was a binary one. In the case of bovine TB, the decision was to go down the path of eradication rather than vaccination, because to adopt the latter policy would be to simultaneously accept, indeed to facilitate the situation, where the disease became endemic. In the case of bovine TB, a policy movement restriction and slaughter of infected animals is followed to this day, in pursuit of the eradication policy.

Clearly this cannot be replicated in the case of Covid, but one assumes that the same rational in respect of the vaccination policy must apply. By vaccination of the vast majority of the population, we ensure that the virus will become endemic and must be accepting of the fact. I personally have no problem with this, but I'm guessing that those who understand these things much better than I, could outline what the long-term effects of this on public health will be, and I suspect they will not all be to the unmitigated good.

[peter]

It took me a couple of days to get this - but what we are seeing here is effectively the introduction of a Chinese style social credit scoring system by stealth. For those who haven't come across this before, in China societal manipulation is effectively carried out by a system of rewards and punishments, levied according to how an individual is 'graded' in terms of the value they represent to the society as a whole (as the administration judges it). Those deemed to be productive, non-confrontational and socially responsible, who do not engage in excessive behaviour patterns in terms of health reducing activities or promotion of anti-state thinking, are rewarded with easier access to travel documentation, access to sought after technology or tickets, faster promotion prospects and the like. An individual's daily activities can be tracked and monitored by their online activity, their phone records in terms of contacts and content, and where they are going and what they are doing can be established at virtually any point of the day, in order to establish this credit score. Things like purchasing records and email/text content, work and medical records, contacts and activities are all combined together in order to provide a complete picture of an individual from which their 'value' to the overall society can be assessed according to the judgement of those who control the system.

Now all of this may seem Orwellian, the stuff of dystopian nightmare, but we are reliably informed that this is exactly the type of thing that operates in China as we speak. I may have got the details wrong - perhaps they are not as advanced in collating the data from all areas of a person's life as I describe - but if they are not today, then they will be tomorrow. But to switch to our own situation, a few days ago in the press it was announced that in order to get youngsters to take up the proffered vaccinations they are being offered, they were to be offered the inducements of free Uber rides and coffee breaks at Starbucks (might have been Costa). Other things such as free Domino's were mooted as well. Already we know that if they don't get double jabbed, then they will not be able to get access to the large event venues (think Glastonbury and the big football games) that they so choose to attend in their numbers. It is also the case that for the rest of us, access to travel, to museums and galleries, to theatres and other recreational venues, could soon be dependent on the holding of the mooted Covid passport. What, if not the beginning of the slippery slope toward the situation I describe above, the doling out of reward and punishment in order to effect manipulation of our behaviour, does this represent?

--------------------------------------0---------------------------------------

Yesterday I watched on the GB News channel on YouTube, an impassioned plea by (ex, I'm betting, due to his stance on the activities of our Government in the past eighteen months) BBC popular historian Neil Oliver on freedom - and how much we have lost. His essential point was that at the end of the day, everything that has been done, everything that is or is not in place and for whatever reasons, boils down to a single simple core - the issue of freedom. Whether we have the right as individuals, to self determination, to decide for ourselves what we do and don't do, what we will or will not accept in terms of the living of our individual lives.

Oliver spoke with emotion and conviction of the pilots, young men, some barely out of school, who took to the skies in the Battle of Britain above our heads, with but very small prospect of survival, to protect the very idea of freedom against the tyranny that had arisen from the continent. He said that he doubted that the freedom that they fought for included the prospect that we could be confined to our houses on the whim of the State, that it would include the parody of freedom under which we now operate. For in their view (as in his) freedom was in essence an absolute. Either you are free, within the agreement which you accept as part of your contract with society, or you are not. Such a definition of freedom as we are now expected to adhere to, would not, he thought, have been the reason that those lads were prepared to take to the skies for, to lay down their lives.

During the course of his post, he mentioned that it almost seemed that the nightmare of Hitler's Germany had arisen overnight, but of course that had not been true; it had been a decade in the making. This was a point that I had actually been making to my wife earlier in the day while delivering a monologue on the loss of freedom (yes - my wife gets all of this just as you do! )

The thing is with the loss of freedom is that we tend to think of it as being linear. That a society descends from freedom into tyranny in a linear fashion, the grip of the state gradually tightening day by day, until its stranglehold is complete. But this is not the way it works. I remember reading or listening to an account of the rise of the Nazis in which the person speaking said that on a day to day basis you were not aware of the tightening of the noose. Rather the destruction of freedom was a million tiny changes, a piece here, a change there, like leggo bricks being pulled randomly one by one from the huge edifice of connections and activities that make up life.

For this reason I don't believe we have any scope for complacency in what is being done in respect of the Covid pandemic. Like Oliver, I've been in a minority in my position, in my unhappiness with where all of this is going and despite the recent relaxing of the restrictions, what I see emerging from the smouldering wreckage of our society is not freedom but a facsimile thereof; a cheap imitation fashioned according to the likes of those in power and sold to us on the backs of the media and propoganda instruments that, hand in glove with the administration, the State, the shadow figures of whom we know nothing, call the tunes to which we dance. So with deliberate emphasis and a plea to hear anew the words of the now perhaps hackneyed warning I say, eyes open everyone, be attentive! Because by the time you hear the jackboots on the stairs - it's too late!