fergieschewy
Tramp
- Messages
- 13,112
I do, the arrogant cunt.Remember Klopp the prick saying he wouldn’t sign unvaccinated players.
I do, the arrogant cunt.Remember Klopp the prick saying he wouldn’t sign unvaccinated players.
He’d fallen for the shame tactics like many, compared us to drink drivers from memory.Remember Klopp the prick saying he wouldn’t sign unvaccinated players.
How easily did so many turn into nazi bastards though for the sake of getting abroad?He’d fallen for the shame tactics like many, compared us to drink drivers from memory.
The time when people lost their minds, no wonder the alien shit is kept under wraps.
Luckily for you, we only have data for one half of the argument, so you can never be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong of course.The impact of the COVID restrictions in terms of debt, missed cancer appts, kids missing school, mental health etc will be far greater than the virus would ever have been.
Too little of that will be looked into by this inquiry.
The lockdown cheerleaders will be forgotten about.
Also, many of the negative impacts from lockdown will take many years to hit.Luckily for you, we only have data for one half of the argument, so you can never be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong of course.
Yep, it was both scary and impressive the job they did on people.How easily did so many turn into nazi bastards though for the sake of getting abroad?
no data to determine whether lockdown is the right approach? Strange, you'd think they'd be having teams of analysts calculating whether global economic shutdown is going to save livesLuckily for you, we only have data for one half of the argument, so you can never be proven wrong. That doesn't mean you're not wrong of course.
There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.no data to determine whether lockdown is the right approach? Strange, you'd think they'd be having teams of analysts calculating whether global economic shutdown is going to save lives
Apart from the nations and states that didn't lockdown I guess. But you've completely missed the point, why wasn't there teams of analysts gathering data and determining what was happening as a result of the global shutdowns? Why wasn't any of that raised at the enquiry? Why didn't they turn to modelling, they felt that was good enough to enforce lockdowns (for some reason), they could model consequences of their actions?There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
Every economy is different, as is the population and it's response to non-enforced recommended behaviour.Apart from the nations and states that didn't lockdown I guess. But you've completely missed the point, why wasn't there teams of analysts gathering data and determining what was happening as a result of the global shutdowns? Why wasn't any of that raised at the enquiry? Why didn't they turn to modelling, they felt that was good enough to enforce lockdowns (for some reason), they could model consequences of their actions?
The impact of the COVID restrictions in terms of debt, missed cancer appts, kids missing school, mental health etc will be far greater than the virus would ever have been.
Too little of that will be looked into by this inquiry.
The lockdown cheerleaders will be forgotten about.
Simply disagreeing with "the other sides" opinions eh! What a thoughtThere is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
We relied too much on people whose brief was too narrow. For example epidemiologists whose sole brief was to reduce transmission of the virus without any other considerations.Apart from the nations and states that didn't lockdown I guess. But you've completely missed the point, why wasn't there teams of analysts gathering data and determining what was happening as a result of the global shutdowns? Why wasn't any of that raised at the enquiry? Why didn't they turn to modelling, they felt that was good enough to enforce lockdowns (for some reason), they could model consequences of their actions?
That last bit doesn't sound like my recollection at the time, I'd be interested if you've got any data to see if I need to revise my opinion.We relied too much on people whose brief was too narrow. For example epidemiologists whose sole brief was to reduce transmission of the virus without any other considerations.
We also relied on people who were blatantly incompetent and had a track record of being so. The prime example was Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College modelling. Ferguson had predicted thousands of deaths from swine flu and SARS and had never modelled anything correctly yet his predictions were treated as gospel.
Finally, it was clear that infections had peaked before the 1st lockdown as the decline accelerated early in lockdown which given the incubation period meant that peoples' own choices and actions were having an impact.
That last bit doesn't sound like my recollection at the time, I'd be interested if you've got any data to see if I need to revise my opinion.
Every economy is different and yet multiple nations used the same modelling software to determine what would happen without certain restrictions. Economic modelling never produces reliable results? Pandemic modelling pathetically attempting to simulate a nation's numbers treating all population densities, cities, towns as the same and was held up by witty, valance and all the media as signs of impending doom with it being used well into 2021 for justifying further restrictions and insane policies like "rule of 6", "substantial meals", "tier system restrictions", "qr code signin and track and trace", "essential items only for purchase" - it's great how sceptical pro lockdown are when it comes to finding ways of justifying lockdown while at same time spreading their arse wide open for whatever crap gov dreamt up and enforced on the nation in a 24 hour period. No way, we can't possibly model any consequences of these actions to get even a rough idea of how much long term damage we are doing not only economically, but also socially - maybe instead of burning billions on track and trace that never produced any results, we could have put effort into collecting real data to justify the ongoing insanity of completely fucking everything up. As for never producing reliable results, insurance companies use modelling when setting rates only they are expected to deliver results so they actually get people who are competent to create them. It's amazing how effortlessly lockdown bellends contradict themselves while holding up this pretence of being a rational science based thinkerEvery economy is different, as is the population and it's response to non-enforced recommended behaviour.
What would be the point? Economic modelling never produces reliable results.
We don’t need the data. Francis Collins, of NIH fame, is admitting precisely what the public health short comings were. They had zero consideration for anything outside of “saving a life from the disease”. As noble a goal as that is, the wider collateral damage, and potential deaths that result from such policy responses, were not taken into consideration. Now, seeing excess deaths elevated globally in 2022 and 2023, it would appear that whatever those public health policy responses to COVID were, they were a failure.There is no data to show what would have happened without lockdowns. We don't know what impact that approach would have had on the economy or the health of the population. All we have is projections, which will simply be dismissed by those that don't agree with their findings.
Can’t be true mate as this thread had been moved to the sweet & sour forum, so it must be a conthpirathy theory.We don’t need the data. Francis Collins, of NIH fame, is admitting precisely what the public health short comings were. They had zero consideration for anything outside of “saving a life from the disease”. As noble a goal as that is, the wider collateral damage, and potential deaths that result from such policy responses, were not taken into consideration. Now, seeing excess deaths elevated globally in 2022 and 2023, it would appear that whatever those public health policy responses to COVID were, they were a failure.
Why have they only concentrated on infections leading to deaths? It's natural that these rates would be very high to start with then fall off as medics learn how to deal with the disease.
They don’t like it up em etcWho has moved this off the main forum?
The fall out from the pandemic and lessons learned are of public interest, and it needs courage to face the realities of what happened.
Hiding threads of this importance in corners of the forum is not a courageous move.
Because at the time it was the best way of tracking it. Testing wasn't widespread enough to give accurate results. They were only testing those in hospital.Why have they only concentrated on infections leading to deaths? It's natural that these rates would be very high to start with then fall off as medics learn how to deal with the disease.
A drop off in total infections before or shortly after lockdown would back up your argument, was that the case?
Credit and attributions of some details to Telegraph, specifically Camilla Turner.
In a pivotal moment for the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer has found itself at the center of massive controversy following a damning verdict by the UK's Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA). The Telegraph has reported that the authority has accused Pfizer of discrediting the pharmaceutical sector through inappropriate social media promotions of its COVID-19 vaccine, which was unlicensed at the time of the posts.
The ruling stems from a series of tweets in November 2020 by senior Pfizer executives, including the UK medical director, Dr. Berkeley Phillips. These posts claimed the vaccine's efficacy rates without providing comprehensive safety information or referencing adverse events, leading to what the PMCPA described as the "proactive dissemination of unlicensed medicine."
SEE PREVIOUS 2013 RULING
This misconduct marks Pfizer's sixth reprimand from the PMCPA, underlining a pattern of behavior that has led to growing calls for reform within the regulatory framework overseeing pharmaceutical promotions. The most recent breaches encompassed not only misleading claims about the vaccine's efficacy and safety but also a failure to maintain the high standards expected within the industry.
BOURLA REPRIMANDED PREVIOUSLY
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had previously been chided for creating claims about COVID19 vaccine efficacy out of thin air. Here is the Telegraphs’ coverage.
Pfizer's CEO rapped by regulator for making 'misleading statements about children's vaccines
Dr Bourla claimed youngsters aged five to 11 benefited from vaccination but the pharmaceutical watchdog said the remarks misled the public
The Telegraph can disclose. Dr Albert Bourla used an interview with the BBC last December to claim that "there is no doubt in my mind that the benefits, completely, are in favour of" vaccinating youngsters aged five to 11 against Covid-19.
Pfizer's UK spokesman responded to the PMCPA's findings with an acknowledgment of the issues raised and an apology, emphasizing the company's commitment to adhering to strict social media policies and regulatory codes. Pfizer has also initiated a review of its employees' use of social media to ensure compliance and prevent future incidents.
Critics, including Ben Kingsley from the campaign group UsForThem, argue that the penalties levied against Pfizer are insufficient given the seriousness of the offenses, suggesting a dire need for a more robust regulatory system. Meanwhile, David Watson of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) defended the existing code of practice, highlighting its role in setting high standards that surpass UK law.
Share
The incident has led some to call for action by US regulators to hold vaccine manufacturers responsible in their communications about vaccine efficacy and safety, particularly on platforms with vast public reach.
The ruling doesn't say anything about the vaccine not being safe or effective? It just says the social media promotion was before the vaccine was licensed doesn't it?Pfizer's been found guilty of misleading the public about the safety and efficacy of it's Covid vaccine and unlawfully promoting an unlicensed medicine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ed-regulatory-code-five-times-watchdog-finds/
Sodding paywall, copy and pasted this from here instead.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/breaking-telegraph-reports-that-pfizer
Safe and effective though, remember?
The ruling doesn't say anything about the vaccine not being safe or effective? It just says the social media promotion was before the vaccine was licensed doesn't it?
Indeed.No, but they created a false perception of their safety to a general public desperate for a way out of lockdown, where there was *zero* medium to long term clinical safety data. And led to people being bullied, shamed & censored, who dared question how Pfizer could possibly have concluded they were safe with so little data.
Anyway we don’t need to quibble over the particulars here, because Moderna have acknowledged how toxic they are now, three years too late…
Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA drug and vaccine toxicity - PubMed
mRNA formulated with lipid nanoparticles is a transformative technology that has enabled the rapid development and administration of billions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses worldwide. However, avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Not much fuss in the MSM about all of this is there.Bad boy Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance getting skewered by the US Select SubCommittee today and rightly so.
He will be getting charged at some point NQAT and not before time.