What Do You Think Today?

Free, open, general chat on any topic.

Moderators: Orlion, balon!, aliantha

User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

That's enough for me Sky! ;)

But can I just make a few further observations, more generally, about the popular understanding of the term Doctor.

What should be recognised (and it was illustrated by the use of the inverted commas in which you initially enclosed Dr Campbell's name - almost as a sort of derogatory intimation, as if he had taken on a false mantle by using his qualification) is the general misunderstanding that the majority of people hold in respect of the academic meaning of the two different uses of the word.

Holders of a degree in medicine are given the appellation MD (ie medical doctor) as opposed to PhD (doctor of philosophy) specifically to point out that they are not scientists, thinkers or investigators of the natural world or indeed the humanities. They are practitioners of the results of such activities, not individuals who are actually involved in pushing forward the boundaries of human knowledge (though of course many do progress further into this realm subsequent to attainment of their medical degrees and are then awarded the PhD appellation following presentation of a doctoral thesis in the normal manner).

The public, in its misunderstanding of the nature of the academic hierarchy, and by virtue of the perfectly understandable regard in which they hold the medical profession, tend to believe that the medical degree is of higher status than the philosophical one, which is contrary to the reality. A medical degree is an undergraduate degree where a PhD is a post graduate one. In the academic world (with its arcane significances of the ermines and tassled hats that the various levels of academic achievement allow one to wear), the PhD sits above that of the MD. It is the lack of understanding of the general public, alongside the fact that they tend to have contact with their Medical Doctors, but not academic doctors, that results in the former being placed on a pedestal within society and gazed at with saucer-eyed adulation. And it is a kudos that they very much enjoy and bask in. But it cuts no slack in the world of academia.

So it's worth reiterating the point. A medical doctor is not a scientist. He or she is a practitioner of the art and science of medicine, not an investigator pushing forward the boundaries of the science that underlies it. This is carried out by the physiologists, the neuroscientists, the pathologists and pharmacologists, who delve ever deeper into the field of understanding of how the body works, how it sometimes doesn't (and what to do when the latter occurs)......in other words, the holders of the PhD's.

And here (at last) we reach the point.

Covid was only a medical problem at its outer edge, the front line if you like of dealing with sick people. But hugely more significantly it was dealt with as a public health problem - a problem for science to deal with in the form of virological transmission, of epidemiological projection and forecasting, of interventionist public health measures etc etc etc. Had it been reserved to the field of being a medical problem for the doctors to deal with (at least in the larger degree), much of the ensuing disaster could have (in my opinion - and it's just that - my opinion) been averted.

But it wasn't. We, if you remember, 'followed the science'. We didn't follow 'the medicine'. It was the science that led us to lockdowns and masks and mass vaccinations. To social distancing and elbow rubbing and behavioural nudging. To fear propoganda and behavioural science units and business closures. In short, it was that very same misunderstanding of the possibilities and limitations of science, as evidenced in our leaders and governments (no different than in us, the wider public) that resulted in undue weight being given to this most nebulous and uncertain of activities, and certainty to be asked of people who, by the very nature of the field they operate in, can only ever give educated guesses.

It would have behoved our leaders to have shown just a tad more scepticism, to have exercised a tad more judgement (taking a longer view of what it was that they were being advised to do) on their own part, when it came to swallowing hook, line and sinker, what a portion of the scientists were telling them. (I say a portion because there were hugely notable exceptions - most mentionable being Professor Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Epidemiology at Oxford University who was absolutely against the lockdown and interventionist policies being recommended by the Imperial College scientists and those of the Sage group, from day one, and who was ostracized by her own community for daring to speak against the received narrative of the day.)

But no. To return to my original point. The medical doctors can only be held in the highest regard for the dedication of the front line service they provided during the pandemic - but they have nothing to say in regards of the science, which was in essence a public health issue and outwith their purview.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

I meant no personal offence ~ at all. And perhaps a little context to explain here we have a number of outspoken social warriors claiming to be experts in the field but once you unpack their credentials they are neither virologists or medical professionals or scientists~ one has worked for many years as a Therapeutic Goods Admin consultant/liaison. Others are loosely affiliated with the medical profession.

But everyone’s a critic ~ right?

I 100% agree ~ we all could have managed COVID better (with the benefit of hindsight)

… but most governments followed the experts and most had the public interest at heart.

So my frame of reference is a number of folk producing DISINFORMATION that they claim as reputable ~ that is neither credible, viable nor peer reviewed as such has been vulnerable to criticism by medical professionals.

This is no way intended to be a criticism of you ~ I had hoped I was clear that I am a skeptic at heart and have worked for the government all my adult life and inasmuch as I know it’s institutionally fallible ~ most governments endeavour to do right by folk ~ despite fucking up occassionally ~ most aim to safeguard public health objectives.

I don’t know Campbell but after doing a cursory search, I immediately came upon the fact checks ~ I was cautious and skeptical about his input also.

Campbell smacked of some of these same kinds of individuals down under ~ doing more to stir up panic and spread disinformation than offer anything of actual value that might aid anyone.

If when searching info on Campbell I found more positive reviews that would have swayed my initial assessment accordingly ~ but alas I did not.

Also I don’t believe most were held to the binary choice of science OR medicine ~ we at least took advice & input from both fields of science, virology and medical professionals.

I would hope most did.

As to Fauci ~ according to his CV he’s an MD and Scientist with his expertise in the field of immunology.

Apparently he’s a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine so I’d take advice from him over many others that don’t share his expertise. Those that do ~ then they’d provide value-add.

I thought social distancing, attentive personal hygeine, masks etc were sensible measures to slow transmission. Not seen any evidence that they had no utility.

As to lockdowns they were poorly managed here and inconsistently applied ~ which was their biggest downfall.

The other issue I could criticise was a lack of public information & consultation. Hopefully these provide lessons learned going forward.

In NSW, one state down under still records 4000 new cases this week with 834 people in hospital, 13 people in ICU, 22 deaths in the last 7 days.

I’ve had COVID and was sick for two months but it definitely wasn’t the sickest I’ve ever been. Though I’m fully vaxxed and boosted as is required of all State Emergency Services members. Hopefully that’s why I was ok ~ but even if it wasn’t a requirement I would have been vaxxed anyway as I work with the public and wouldn’t want to be responsible for anyone getting sick. Which was a key driver for my adherence with the mandates & requirements.

I hope we can do better and learn from this 🙏
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by wayfriend »

Skyweir wrote: I 100% agree ~ we all could have managed COVID better (with the benefit of hindsight)

… but most governments followed the experts and most had the public interest at heart.
When the US Energy Department determined with "low confidence" that the COVID virus was probably from a lab, there was a lot of "Ah ha!" from certain quarters of the web. Mere weeks later, news that there is stronger evidence that the virus is tied to the racoon dogs in the market, these same folks are busy looking at other things and humming a distracted tune.

There's a very political angle to the disparagement of the pandemic response. It's no coincidence that all the same people blasted the response on the very first day - somehow knowing prophetically that it was wrong, and that they blamed it all on ulterior motives of the other political party, and that they never bother correcting any misinformation about it, and that they now are cherry-picking the facts to say "Ah ha!".

Don't get medical information from politicians and politicos.
.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Avatar »

Yeah, I sorta agree with that. And I mean, especially the US these last few years, where you can't sneeze without being accused of making a political statement. (And it seems some quarters of the UK are following suit.)

Not that we aren't following a similar path here in some respects, but the political statements people are bing accused of making are on very different themes. :D

--A
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

True that ~ and it’s highly evident here also.

But why wouldn’t it be ~ globalisation enabled fast spread of all things ~ not just unwanted viruses either.

Attitudes, both positive and negative ~ technology, fashion, political viewpoints wherever they fall on the political spectrum.

Globalisation has a lot to do with the uptake of nationist populist spread throughout out Europe and beyond.

Stands to reason that conspiracy theories spread the same way.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Mmm.....

I think both our politicians and the scientific community have questions to answer.

The Select Subcommittee on the Covid Pandemic hearings, held recently in Washington have demonstrated pretty conclusively that the origin of the virus was from the Wuhan Institute of Virology subsequent to gain of function research being carried out (and likely funded as it happens, by various branches of the American state, namely the NIH, the State Department, USAID and the DOD) on a batch of coronavirus.

Expert testimony given to the subcommittee by some of the key personnel involved, most notably Dr Robert Redfield former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that the virus bore little relation to the earlier sars-1 or mere viruses which had never at any point achieved human to human transfer capabilities (the development of which had been the objective of the said gain of function research referred to above). The rapidity with which the cov 2 virus had achieved this capability was simply not consistent with a natural evolutionary pattern - a conclusion shared he said, by a group of eminent experts that had had conference with Dr Fauci, mere days before they had out of the blue, and in a further conference call to which he had not even been made aware was occurring, reversed their position and put forward the wet market origin theory that became the established narrative. He was, he said, undoubtedly excluded from this ongoing reversal of opinion because the group, under the direction of Dr Anthony Fauci, wanted to present a single front on the matter. The motivation for this reversal was he said (iirc) the likely desire of Dr Fauci to hide the American connection to the pandemic origin - to cover his own tracks since he himself had been party to the funding decisions - and in result, any further suggestion of a laboratory origin became subject to ridicule and accusations of being "conspiracy theory" material. Shortly thereafter a paper was released in the prestigious journal nature absolutely ruling out any possible source of the virus other than a natural one - a conclusion that four different interviewees at the subcommittee all said was presumptuous and completely unfounded given the state of knowledge of the virus at the time. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability wrap up, given in a press release published on March 8 2023, is entitled 'Facts, Science, Evidence, Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak.'

Sudden reversals of opinion, exclusions from the debate, ridicule of alternative opinion, presumptive release of unproven assumptions as fact? Is this how science is to progress from now on then? And these are the people you trust........?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

On March 20 2023 at 5.34am, Baghdad time, based on a spurious and now discredited bunch of reasons involving weapons of mass destruction and putative connections of the country to Al-Queda, the UK and USA invaded a sovereign nation and brought about the overthrow of its leadership and government.

Yesterday in the press and on the BBC, John Simpson, the BBC journalist who was at the vanguard of the Western forces as they marched into Iraq, said how he was now ashamed of his coverage and acknowledged that the invasion had been a disaster for the nation and the region more generally, the results of which it suffers from, to this day. The lives lost, the suffering caused in consequence of that illegal invasion, both at the time and going forward, are/is incalculable. Yet not one word of admonishment, not one statement of condemnation has been issued by the UN, not one individual involved in the duping of the public in the two aggressor nations into acceptance of the illegal invasion, has ever been brought to trial - on the contrary both Bush and Blair ride high on the kudos of their terms of office, Blair in particular still to this day appearing regularly on the world stage, using his platform to opine on this matter or that, and making untold fortunes in the process.

During the coverage of the now discredited Iraqi adventure on the news last night, the irony of the position we are now in with respect to our response to the Putin invasion of Ukraine was not lost on me.

We can easily, it seems, accommodate a degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the holding of double standards in respect of our opinion on the actions of others, as opposed to the actions of ourselves. And the same can, it seems, be said of the UN.

Or is it the case that wars are okay only if we say they are okay (and by we, I of course mean America - we only follow that great nation like a poodle)?

Nothing but nothing can justify Putin's actions in Ukraine. Nothing but nothing can justify what we did in Iraq. They are of a piece. In fact Putin has at least, the fact of a large minority Russian population living within Ukraine - and a population that has not by accounts, been well treated within the country, prior to the invasion (think the way we treated the Southern Irish in Northern Ireland as second class citizens) - to justify his actions (though it is of course, no justification for invading and levelling a country at all). We had not even that much of a connection.

No. When it comes to finger pointing and holding the moral high ground, we have little to no justification for patting ourselves on the back. Putin is a bastard for what he is doing, as were Bush and Blair before him.

And just maybe, if we cease to view our own contributions to the world order through these blinkered rose-tinted lenses, we might actually begin to understand why perhaps countries like China and Russia think that it's time for America to step back. That maybe there might be room for other countries of this world to have a say in the running of it. That maybe a world council that does not automatically rubber-stamp any decision to go to war made by 'the West' with approval, but castigate as an automatic response, any other country that makes this terrible decision, might be possible? That the time of the American hegemony is over and perhaps other countries may make an input, may make their voices count on the world stage?

The legacy of the West from the end of World War 1 stretching right the way forward to the present day is a questionable one. Right the way from the Middle East through to Europe and the far East, the fell hand of our foreign policy has exerted its influence and while we in the West have enjoyed the fruits of our success, too often it has been the case that others in far flung corners of the world have born the brunt of our ill-judged interventions.

Now we stand on the brink of repeating our past failures and once again pursuing a course that will lead only to further suffering and potentially disastrous consequences.

So I say this. If President Xi can, against all odds, sit down with Putin and Zelensky and thrash out a solution to this conflict, then let him. Don't intervene, don't pressure President Zelensky to ignore any overtures, don't pour scorn on the Chinese for at least trying to bring about a peace, where we seem only intent on continuation of hostilities. Certainly Xi will expect to come out of any successful result empowered thereby. So what? Are we still in the territory of the 'Project For the New American Century' that we could not tolerate such an end?

Before we start condemning the actions of others we had better start by acceptance of consequences of our own. "Why beholdest thou the mote in thy brothers eye but consider not the beam in thine own," asks the Bible and it is a question that we would do well to address to ourselves. If we don't start to begin acting with a little more humility, a little less self interest and inflexibility, then we are liable, by accident rather than intention, to unleash a holocaust that will leave none of us standing.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

So is this brief statement the one you are feeding to?

Given by Redfield

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content ... ield88.pdf

He basically distinguishes potential COVID origins ~ whether it bea natural spillover event or it was a lab leak and suggests it should be rigorously investigated.

I think you may be conflating his statement to support one theory over another.

I agree investigation would be useful. That’s as far as that goes.
At a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing on March 8, [Jim] Jordan claimed Fauci pressured virologists Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research and Robert Garry of Tulane University to change their minds and support the theory that the virus transferred naturally from animals to humans, rather than originating in a lab. This claim of a quid pro quo has spread widely on social media.

Not only is there no evidence for this, but the timing of the grant is inconsistent with such a claim. Moreover, NIAID directors do not unilaterally decide who gets funding; groups of outside scientists review proposals and provide scores that are the primary determinants of funding.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

No Sky - the site I was accessing is found by googling house committee on the origins of the covid virus and then clicking on the oversight.house.gov result (should be second from the top) that reads Covid origins hearing wrap up....

If you can't get to it, most of the salient points are available to view on YouTube and shouldn't be hard to find. Makes for uneasy viewing I promise.

:)
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by wayfriend »

peter wrote: The Select Subcommittee on the Covid Pandemic hearings, held recently in Washington have demonstrated pretty conclusively that the origin of the virus was from the Wuhan Institute of Virology
No. They have not demonstrated this conclusively. As yet, no one can.

This is a political stunt. The conspiracy theories you outline really makes that obvious.
.
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Fair comment about the word demonstrated Wayfriend, but I have watched the salient parts of the session and think (for what that is worth) that the questions raised deserve to be addressed. If the facts were as the various interviewees described them - and these are all highly respected individuals - one imagines that a former Director of the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention in regular contact with The Chief Medical Officer for the US might know what he is talking about - then there was most definitely something rotten in the heart of Denmark and it is time to draw it out.

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

Rishi Sunak is in pretty deep shit over the Windsor Framework an the so called Stormont Brake, not that you would know it from the pitiful coverage it has received in the legacy media.

Basically the DUP has come out and (as I predicted) said that it will not support the Framework as it currently stands, until they can be convinced that the aforementioned Brake actually has the teeth to prevent EU drawn up legislation from application in the province. There will be much more than this that they are unhappy with, not least the still included role of the ECJ in adjudication of disputes and transgressions of the terms of the Framework, but for the moment the NI party are doing there best not to sound too deliberately contrary following Rishi Sunak's hard won agreement.

But the decision made by a dozen party elders (rather than just the leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson) will seriously undermine support in the deal, not least in Westminster (where from the PM's point of view it really counts) because the hard Brexiteer factions of the parliamentary party, the ERG and the like, have said that they will take their lead from the DUP and support or otherwise, the framework according to this.

There is little chance that the Windsor Framework will fail to pass the House - both the Labour Party and the other represented parties in the House (with the exception of the DUP Westminster MPs) have said that they would back the government - but it is not a good look for a Tory PM to be reliant on opposition support to get through his legislation. In fact however, it probably isn't quite that bad - although a significant number of Tories will probably vote against their own government, probably not so many as that would have overturned the legislation had Labour not been supporting it.

But either way, it doesn't look good and Sunak knows it. More importantly for him, while the DUP remain in opposition to the Framework it is unlikely that they will return to the power sharing agreement in Stormont and so devolved government within the province will remain stymied. This will not be a good look to take with him to his meeting with Jo Biden later this week (I think it is - certainly pretty soon). The brexit trilemma was simply never going to be sorted out with the shake of a wand, and Sunak was a fool if he thought that it was. Boris Johnson may be appearing in the dock today over the partygate affair, but this is his true legacy to Sunak and the Tories. That he saddled them with a withdrawal agreement that almost certainly opened the door to the end of the Good Friday Agreement and quite probably the reunification of Ireland. Sunak will soldier on, but he is weakened: and the old divisions of the brexit era are starting to reopen and nothing will stop them from continuing to do so from this day on.

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

On the issue of the Johnson hearings, today the blonde bombshell will sit for a four hour session in front of the Parliamentary privileges committee and deliver the performance that will save or end his political career.

He has prepared a dossier for the committee's consideration saying basically that he was advised that protocols were being followed within Downing Street and he had no reason to doubt that this was the case (despite being present in photographs of what appear to be boozy sessions within No 10).

There may have been some kind of bylaws exempting the premises from the covid restrictions, but as yet I have not heard this argument being mooted, but what has been suggested is that the privileges committee might have prejudiced itself in respect of the hearings by changing the goalposts half way through the game.

Basically, this centers around the fact that they changed the wording from the traditional, "Did this individual deliberately mislead parliament" to, "Did this individual recklessly mislead parliament. There is, you will note, a deliberate shifting away from intent in the second version, allowing a guilty verdict to be passed even on an individual who acted unknowingly to mislead parliament. In the second form it becomes the degree of misleading, rather than the knowledge of it, that becomes the deciding factor. I have to say that guilty as I believe Johnson to be (in terms of his knowing exactly what he was doing when he told the House that "no rules were broken"), I have some sympathy with the argument that changing the rules just because it doesn't look like you are going to be able to prove guilt (no matter that you might know it to be the case) via the first wording, doesn't seem like fair play to me.

But going back to Sunak (who of course received his own fine for law breaking during the events in question), what will his take on all of this be? I have little doubt that he'd like to see Johnson found guilty. If the former PM were to be found so and drummed out of parliament in consequence, then it would remove a significant thorn from his side, if not an outright threat to his leadership. Johnson was, after all, the man who gave the Tories their stonking majority and in some sense it is still him that holds it. If the Windsor Framework side of affairs blows up in his (Sunak's) face and trouble starts mounting, then the last thing he wants is for a re-energised Johnson, enjoying his high profile and success from the partygate fight, stirring up additional trouble for him.

So he'd like to see Johnson kicked into the long grass for sure and be rid of him..... and for this reason alone, I tend to want the opposite. I have to say that I regard the Sunak/Braverman/Hunt administration as a really dangerous thing. I have little doubt that if Braverman were to ever become PM in some future manifestation of an extreme right wing Conservative government, I have little doubt that I'd be off to prison simply for what I have posted on these pages. I never would have believed it possible in this country, but things are very much different here than they have been in the past. Johnson for all his faults as an individual - and God knows he has enough of those - is not a hard right individual. He's a chancer, a political opportunist, and one that has allowed for a particularly nasty manifestation of the right wing element of the Tory Party to step into the breach left by himself, but he's not himself of that ilk. For this reason I'd prefer to have him around. Like it or not, he has a political clout that Sunak could only dream of. His presence will always be a draw, a pulling of the party back toward the centre ground and we really need that at present.

And besides. Despite his passing of the laws upon which he is now being hoisted, what was he really doing that a million people up and down the country were not. There is ample evidence that he was not happy with the lockdown policy from day one and that he held out from introducing it for as long as his cabinet would allow him. He, like the rest of us, knew that it would be ineffective in controlling the spread of the virus and he did, frankly, what other people were doing the length and breadth of the nation. He payed lip service to it in public and behind closed doors pretty much ignored it. Because you simply cannot legislate for people not to live their lives and expect them to follow it. They'll make the effort to put up a show of doing so, but behind the scenes life will go on. Johnson knew this and was not of the type that would buck against it. He was always going to run a completely inebriate type of administration - he ever was a party animal and being PM was not going to change this - and what went on in Downing Street was simply a manifestation of this. Had not he been surrounded by a lot of little traffic warden style thinking individuals in his cabinet - the Matt Hancock's and Dominic Raab's with their authoritarian leaning personalities - none of the restrictions would probably have ever happened anyway.

So yes. He's guilty as sin. Guilty of being a self interested bastard with no political ideology other than the Bank of Boris about him at all. Guilty of allowing a life to continue around him, of not weilding the authoritarian stick over those working for him (and they were working long hours under great pressure remember), of allowing them the freedom to let their hair down, to let off steam in the only way that he knew how, by partying like it was 1999. Guilty of many and varied things. But he's not guilty of being a dictator in the making. Not guilty of dreaming of other people much less fortunate than himself being shipped off to a country of which they know nothing, with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Not guilty of relishing the idea, of basking in the power of holding people within their homes and punishing them with punitive fines if they transgressed. These things were anathema to him, despite what the Hancock's of this world wanted, and for this reason I say let him off. Extend the same gracious leniency towards him that he extended towards the people who were trying their hardest within Downing Street at the time in question. And if he misled parliament, then he misled parliament. He won't be the first and he won't be the last. And at least he will have done it for reasons that we can all understand; because he's a human being, a fallible individual who failed just as we all fail......so let him off..... because if all were judged according to their just desserts, which one of us would escape a whipping?
Last edited by peter on Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

I agree ~ and can’t imagine him being professionally discredited ~ as that would be inappropriate.

There are a number of experts and Fauci is one of them who shares significant experience and knowledge base.

Alas the session I watched was politicised as folk seem won’t to do ~ I think Redfield raises the need to determine the virus origin.

So that we have a solid understanding of its beginnings and how to manage future significant health threats better.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

In fact if there is a thing we’ve learned from COVID is how IT has been politicised ~ which thing aided no one ~ no one at the organisational level nor anyone suffering COVID.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

From the testimony I watched it seemed clear that some kind of pressure had been applied to individuals to reverse their opinion on the origins of the virus. The question of the rapidit, no - almost unprecedented degree with which the Covid-19 virus was able to 'hit the ground running' in terms of human to human transfer was raised by Dr Redfield and documents submitted by other workers in the field appear to corroborate that this question was by no means confined to him alone.

Other contributions, in the form of submitted documents, go deeper into the scientific aspects, such as the genetic sequencing found in the virus, which point towards a 'gain of function' origin for this capacity, research on which was known to be being carried out at the WIH, in particular by Dr Anthony Fauci because, by accounts, it was being in part funded by departments that came under his jurisdiction. It was advanced that Fauci had conspired to put pressure on scientists to "downplay" the laboratory origin theory in favour of the natural one.

Absolutely, there will be politicians who will seek to make political gains by these accusations - when do politicians do otherwise - but the questions raised still remain. Was the possibility of a lab leak downplayed, even covered up by inappropriate pressure applied to the scientific community? Was the origin of the virus natural as we were assured in the journal Nature, or was this conclusion as has been advanced, presumptuous? If it was how best should we proceed to rectify this 'mistake'? And finally, what does this tell us about the whole way in which our response to the pandemic was ordered, was prosecuted by those in power and the means by which it was done?

These are important questions that we need to answer in respect of dealing with future pandemics. In addition, if the virus origin is ultimately deemed to have been laboratory rather than natural in nature, a serious and significant review of safety (and licencing) procedures of such institutions might be the least of the responses we could expect.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Lost another post today. :(

When I have gone to another page to read the papers and then try to come back to my half written post, I get a 'confirm form resubmission' page (whatever the frick that is) with no option to return to my half completed work. I have now ticked the 'remember me' box (as Av recommend me to do, but which I forgot) so hopefully this will work the oracle.

In the meantime, I watched the first half of the Johnson hearing yesterday before going to work. It was pretty standard stuff - much as you would have predicted, and I'm thinking that it is likely that he'll be found wanting. His performance was passable, full of bluster and promises as you would expect, but I'm thinking that the committee had probably pretty much come to it's verdict long before this sitting and nothing that came out yesterday is going to change it.

I have some sympathy with Johnson's argument. They were trying to administer the country through the worst crisis (albeit totally unnecessary as it was in my opinion) since WW2 and were working extraordinarily long hours in an old and often cramped building. Certainly rules were broken, even liberties taken, but the circumstances were extraordinary and while it might be well and good to pontificate from a distance about what should and should not be done, in the heat of the battle (as it were) things would have been much messier than the description of them might seem. The real world doesn't perform the way that those sitting at a distance would often have us believe it does - and the individuals so-called 'partying' at No 10 were very much living in the real world, not in some abstractly described bubble. And look at the photos for goodness sake? They don't look like any of the parties I've taken part in over the course of my life, and that's a fact. If this is a politicians idea of what partying is about then I suggest that they are seriously limited in their understanding of the concept. It looks about as much fun was being had as watching paint dry to me, but there you have it.

Elsewhere, the putative Tory rebellion against the Windsor Framework fizzled out (the Tory right wingers having decided to cut their losses and take the gains that they have made) and Rishi Sunak took the opportunity to slip out his tax return while all attention was diverted by the bigger shows in town. He made five million quid over and above his Westminster salary, and paid the minimum tax rate on most of it (because it was share price related and thus qualified as capital gains). Nice (not quite) work if you can get it. :roll:
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Avatar »

Just confirming the form resubmission should work, but clicking "back" on your browser should take you to the page with what you were typing still there.

--A
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
peter wrote: Lost another post today. :(

When I have gone to another page to read the papers and then try to come back to my half written post, I get a 'confirm form resubmission' page (whatever the frick that is) with no option to return to my half completed work. …

[…]
Why not use the Save Draft function?

Image

Image Save Draft function not available when using the Quick Reply postbox.


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

Clever 👌👌👌👌
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

:lol: Just typed a short response to your kind comments and saved the draft as recommended. Now can't find the saved draft.! Oh dear - methinks this newfangled technology is not for me. Hand me a quill and parchment any day!

;)

Anyway. I'm going to get round it by posting a part written post which I can then edit at a later point, before navigating to a different page. If you ever come across suddenly terminating posts, you may assume that this is what I am currently doing. The reason I need to swap back and forth between pages is to reference the papers I or subject I'm commenting on, my memory being well......

Sorry - what was I talking about?

;)

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

When the political leaders (or their lackey press) start disparaging the judiciary and legal profession of their own country you can be sure that they are up to no good.

We saw it during the Brexit debacle when the Daily Mail branded the judges "Traitors!", for their ruling that parliament must be consulted befor Article 51 could be triggered,and we have heard Suella Braverman and numberless politicians berating the "lefty lawyers" over their attempts to prevent people from being deported to Rwanda via the government's relocation scheme for migrants who arrive on the small boats.

Now a new attack in today's press over the refusal of barristers to prosecute so-called 'eco-warriors' is being levelled against them.

You don't need me to tell you that an independent judiciary and strong legal establishment are key features of a working democracy and, if functioning properly, will be by necessity a thorn in the ruling polity's side, but this will ever be bucked against by those who feel that their hands are being tied by the process. But when a sustained and coordinated attack by both administration and media is seen to be being mounted, then warning bells should begin to ring.

We are pretty deep into this territory now and the more often we call this out the better. Unnecessary fears - quite possibly....but better safe than sorry.

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

Suella Braverman, on her recent visit to Rwanda, was accompanied by an invited coterie of TV media and press journalists from outlets friendly to the current administration. Not included were journalists from the Mirror, the 'i', and other more independent and less sycophantic publications, who were actively proscribed from attendance.

During her visit she was shown some of the newly constructed accommodation that would be used for housing the trafficked refugees (for that's just what they will be - trafficked - never mind that it is our government that will be doing it) and gushed forth about the desirability of the housing.

It has "parking space for a car" in front of the property (she told us) and inside is decked out with "beige sofa's and pink curtains" (so 70's don't you know Suella) - and at one point laughingly turned to her accompanying retinue and asked if anyone could get her the name of the interior designer that had worked there as she could do with a little help in that direction!

So inviting did the Home Secretary make the place that I was almost sorry that I wasn't arriving on a small boat in order to be shipped off there immediately upon arrival.

I mean, blimey Suella - you are supposed to be discouraging the boat people, not encouraging them with a free pass to a new home in the sun (albeit after a couple of weeks in a nissen hut in Essex). I'm half tempted to sign up for a boat trip from Calais myself, never mind a refugee from war-torn Syria!

Besides which, not sure where a refugee from sub-saharan Africa who arrives with only the clothes on his back after a walk of many thousand miles is going to find a car for that parking space, but let that go.

But seriously, this was so ridiculous as to be almost insulting. It was reminiscent of ......no......I'm not even going to go down that route - Gary Lineker recently found what happens when you make that kind of comparison - but you can either get the historical comparison or you can't.

Either way, it's hard to believe that anyone is going to fall for this kind of bullshit - I can't actually think what Braverman was trying to achieve by such a silly propoganda stunt - was she trying to be deliberately provocative..... She surely didn't expect anyone to actually believe that this was the life lined up for a refugee sent preremptorily to Rwanda post arrival in the UK? Surely not? But if not, then what was it all about? The more I think about it the more confusing I find it. Perhaps that's exactly what is meant to be the case? Beats me.
Last edited by peter on Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:27 am, edited 4 times in total.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Skyweir »

:LOLS:
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion Forum”