Politics

[Monkeys Fist 38804]

By the way, David Davis positioning himself  as some kind of morally principled angel- 

 

He can take his historical quotes and shove them up his arse. 

[ewerk 26441]

3 hours ago, Asprilla said:

The fix if I was boss would be to get involved with property ownership

 

i would allow tenants to have a stake in whatever the property value increased by while they were there.

 

landlords could still benefit, just not by as much

 

not being able to get a foothold is key to getting stuck in the poverty trap

 

and conversely having something to lose helps people regulate their behaviour for the good

Essentially what you’re suggesting is co-ownership which is how I bought my first house and a very successful government funded programme here in NI. 
 

But you still don’t think government has a role in helping people do this?

[Renton 17824]

4 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

By the way, David Davis positioning himself  as some kind of morally principled angel- 

 

He can take his historical quotes and shove them up his arse. 

 

I enjoyed it. Was quite subtle imo, suggesting Johnson was more akin to Chamberlain than Churchill. Also hilarious that Johnson didn't recognise the quote considering he is supposed to be writing a biography on Churchill, the stupid cunt.

[Tom 13877]

The old lifting of/imposing of restrictions distraction eh? 
 

Just the 98,000 cases yesterday.

[Renton 17824]

Just now, Tom said:

The old lifting of/imposing of restrictions distraction eh? 
 

Just the 98,000 cases yesterday.

 

Cases aren't even measured properly any more with PCR. You can triple that.

[Dr Gloom 19837]

half my daughter's class are off with it now after testing positive. luckily they all appear have mild/no symptoms, but i can't remember it tearing through schools to this extent at any other point during the pandemic. 

[Tom 13877]

Doesn’t really matter it’s only vulnerable people that will die, eh? 
 

[Renton 17824]

Think 90% in ICU aren't fully vaccinated like. 

[Monkeys Fist 38804]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

he is supposed to be writing a biography on Churchill, the stupid cunt.

Where does a man who is Prime Minister, and father to two children under the age of three, and married to an absolute cunt, find the time to write a book? 
 

He’s either supremely talented (  ) or he’s not doing one, or all of the above. 

[Dr Gloom 19837]

i do tend to agree with the suggestion that we have moved from pandemic to endemic. we managed to keep the country open without locking everything down again - a rare win for the beleaguered PM - but that doesn't mean it becomes a mild disease overnight. mitigation/containment strategies are likely to be needed in the future 

[Renton 17824]

5 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

i do tend to agree with the suggestion that we have moved from pandemic to endemic. we managed to keep the country open without locking everything down again - a rare win for the beleaguered PM - but that doesn't mean it becomes a mild disease overnight. mitigation/containment strategies are likely to be needed in the future 

 

And contingency plans if we get another fucking variant of concern.

[spongebob toonpants 3605]

2 hours ago, scoobos said:

Before I start - I'm pro bbc and have no issue with the licence fee at all, I think its very undervalued and people who haven't spent considerable time resident in other countries haven't seen how its the best broadcaster in the world, bar none.


But no one has said it will be without public money, they've said "we are freezing the licence fee and this is the last decision we will make until 2027".
"The licence fee's existence is guaranteed until at LEAST 31st December 2027 by the BBC's royal charter and that's not likely to change without a massive push of public opinion.

Now this is where I think the stealth and deliberate culture war is happening - during the period of the biggest inflation we've seen since the late 80's early 90s (5% or more) , we are saying the licence fee wont increase. So effectively its a net terms CUT year on year of 5% compounded at least .

So I think their plan is, "The public wont back us, unless the quality drops remarkably, or the institution has to outsource, or fails" .

See NHS strategy etc. (all my 2 cents)

Privatisation technique: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital. — Noam Chomsky

[scoobos 297]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Hard disagree on the Guardian being as bad as the Mail. The Guardian's nonsense all comes through their editorials and they are poor there, I agree, but the day to day factual reporting looks solid to me. Dorries literally said what the Guardian reported. Your article is 10 hours old so clearly there's been a change in the narrative since the one I posted. I note the FT also posted that she suggested abolishing it a few days earlier, so really the distinction here is that the Guardian has taken her words as agreed cabinet policy (which I also did on reading it) and No. 10 has then dialled it back.

 

Can't believe I've just defended the Guardian but to compare it to the Mail is just not reasonable. It's more akin to the Telegraph. The Left wing equivalent to the Mail would be Buzzfeed or some student union newspapers.

 

As for the political point about sticking to parties - I mean I agree, I fully intended to vote Green in this election due to their EU stance. But in the end, if we get into a situation where Labour is going to protect the BBC and the Tories are going to kill it, that's another manifesto issue that I have strong feelings on, and is likely sufficient for me to back Labour. That said, the decision for me is more around editorial control. I don't watch terrestrial TV, I only use subscription services like Netflix and Prime, so I haven't paid for a license in years. Thus, maybe it's not my place to even get involved in this one..! I don't care so much about the license fee as I do about the BBC becoming a vehicle for Murdoch style "reporting".

I wanted to push back with this link and say, nah its just as bad - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ but it is 1 mark more credible I suppose.

I was involved at a Principal level with a countries covid response (IT wise) and the Guardian was posting utter utter shite about it at the time.

I used to be a loyal reader, but it was utter bullshit and the first time I'd seen how cleverly they twisted the "facts" to suit their narrative. But it was very similar, presenting something 1 person had "said" as a documented and proper thing, when it wasn't. A minister can say anything they want, but a policy has to be written, put forward and discussed and voted on in Parliament.. (*cough* usually, though the current gvt have been right bastards at skipping that with Covid policy).

I trust these guys and they say its "Mixed" not "Low" so I shuddup a my face. But its not trustworthy, not by a long way.

The Guardian - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) - Mixed
Daily Mail - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) - Factual reporting Low

Least biased and most factual, seems to be:
Financial Times - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

I'd go with all the above , in my personal view. Who would have thought that FT would NOT be supportive of Neoliberalist governments , but they are not. (And I agree there too, final stage Capitalism is absolutely as horrific on a global scale as facism etc, just because the deaths and torture aren't in your country, doesnt really matter in a globalised world).

OMG, I dont know what prompted this soapbox, but I'm getting down off it. Have we signed fookin lingard yet?

Edited January 19, 2022 by scoobos

[Gemmill 34599]

 

 

[Howmanheyman 26935]

3 hours ago, Gemmill said:

Lots of suggestion that this defection has put the brakes on the letters going in. A sort of unity has broken out as they don't want to give Labour any more wins today. 

 

This Wakeford lad is a proper Tory mind, if you look back through his voting record and debate interventions. 

Take the quick win with the publicity it brings, don't be arseholes and bicker about him joining despite being an obvious cunt but absolutely replace him when it's convenient do so. 

[scoobos 297]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

Think 90% in ICU aren't fully vaccinated like. 

I never find anything to back that up, I think its statistically very unbelievable. Here's PHE's own definition on the report I'll link below:

"1 In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19"

This is the published data and it doesn't add up that none of the deaths on page 41 , were in ITU at any point (not page 40, that's Level one admission, needing oxygen or care but not High dependency). 

COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report - week 2 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Also, very suspicious to me that the old survellience report became Covid and Flu,  when PHE suddenly started publishing under the Health Security Agency or whatever the fook they've called it. when it was specifically Covid before, more water muddying.

I'd love to know how they get away with making these statements and publish the fact at the same time ... Happened all through the pandemic. "masks aren't useful" - WHO publish, whilst masks are useful there's going to be a world shortage and healthcare professionals will need priority. etc.

Now its cases are down, when you've basically reduced PCR testing by 17% and made it less accessible, replacing it with an honesty policy that is entirely voluntary (LFT). Oh and also the never mentioned fact that UK Citizens can only be recorded ONCE - so if you had it 3 times in the last year (PCR positive), only your first time was included in the statistics.

And whilst mortality might be lower , it can be a third lower and kill just as many people due to high cases:

Healthcare in Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

Right there, you can see that the total number of covid patients in Newcastle hospitals (blocking beds for other serious ilnesses we are not measuring) - is as almost as high today (data from 11th Jan) as its ever been in the entire pandemic  - But London is ok, so lets lift everything and even send a message that we wont even need to isolate anymore soon. Boils my blood.

Also, my best friends mate died last week of Covid, at 50 - no pre-existing conditions, got covid on Friday - died of a PE in his heart, on the Sunday - to call it mild is very upsetting. DHSC Mild == don't need hospital, not "the sniffles".

now im really logging off
 

Edited January 19, 2022 by scoobos
Adding link to Newcastle hospitals total patient numbers.

[Alex 30450]

27 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I wanted to push back with this link and say, nah its just as bad - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ but it is 1 mark more credible I suppose.

I was involved at a Principal level with a countries covid response (IT wise) and the Guardian was posting utter utter shite about it at the time.

I used to be a loyal reader, but it was utter bullshit and the first time I'd seen how cleverly they twisted the "facts" to suit their narrative. But it was very similar, presenting something 1 person had "said" as a documented and proper thing, when it wasn't. A minister can say anything they want, but a policy has to be written, put forward and discussed and voted on in Parliament.. (*cough* usually, though the current gvt have been right bastards at skipping that with Covid policy).

I trust these guys and they say its "Mixed" not "Low" so I shuddup a my face. But its not trustworthy, not by a long way.

The Guardian - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) - Mixed
Daily Mail - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) - Factual reporting Low

Least biased and most factual, seems to be:
Financial Times - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

I'd go with all the above , in my personal view. Who would have thought that FT would NOT be supportive of Neoliberalist governments , but they are not. (And I agree there too, final stage Capitalism is absolutely as horrific on a global scale as facism etc, just because the deaths and torture aren't in your country, doesnt really matter in a globalised world).

OMG, I dont know what prompted this soapbox, but I'm getting down off it. Have we signed fookin lingard yet?

I’d ask how reliable / independent Media Bias / Fact Check is (genuine question as i don’t know). I suppose my take is the Guardian isn’t spreading hate in the same way the Mail is but that’s an entirely different matter really. I’m not a particular fan of the Guardian and haven’t been for a long time. Like Rayvin I have a problem with a lot of the editorial stuff which is, quite frankly, well into the realms of self parody. It’s quite interesting to see it portrayed as being pretty unreliable and almost as bad as the Mail on that. I can’t really comment due to reading it so rarely now. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Alex

[scoobos 297]

Yeah I understand, I'm in a kind of denial myself, but I've been away for many years so not read the British media as much - but now I think this, I notice it more and more on subjects that I know something about.

I think blaming "boomers and right wingers" for everything can make hate as much as blaming immigrants and lefties.

I'd still read the Guardian, whilst waiting for a haircut, but I'd fucking bin the mail if I saw it !

And of course, who is the web to say what we can trust and cannot - but I do have a lot of faith in that website, as much as the fact checker site.

Edited January 19, 2022 by scoobos

[Dr Gloom 19837]

the guardian obviously has a woke editorial slant but as a trusted source of news it is first class, as are most of the UK's broadsheets tbh. 

[Renton 17824]

38 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I never find anything to back that up, I think its statistically very unbelievable. Here's PHE's own definition on the report I'll link below:

"1 In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19"

This is the published data and it doesn't add up that none of the deaths on page 41 , were in ITU at any point (not page 40, that's Level one admission, needing oxygen or care but not High dependency). 

COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report - week 2 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Also, very suspicious to me that the old survellience report became Covid and Flu,  when PHE suddenly started publishing under the Health Security Agency or whatever the fook they've called it. when it was specifically Covid before, more water muddying.

I'd love to know how they get away with making these statements and publish the fact at the same time ... Happened all through the pandemic. "masks aren't useful" - WHO publish, whilst masks are useful there's going to be a world shortage and healthcare professionals will need priority. etc.

Now its cases are down, when you've basically reduced PCR testing by 17% and made it less accessible, replacing it with an honesty policy that is entirely voluntary (LFT). Oh and also the never mentioned fact that UK Citizens can only be recorded ONCE - so if you had it 3 times in the last year (PCR positive), only your first time was included in the statistics.

And whilst mortality might be lower , it can be a third lower and kill just as many people due to high cases:

Healthcare in Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

Right there, you can see that the total number of covid patients in Newcastle hospitals (blocking beds for other serious ilnesses we are not measuring) - is as almost as high today (data from 11th Jan) as its ever been in the entire pandemic  - But London is ok, so lets lift everything and even send a message that we wont even need to isolate anymore soon. Boils my blood.

Also, my best friends mate died last week of Covid, at 50 - no pre-existing conditions, got covid on Friday - died of a PE in his heart, on the Sunday - to call it mild is very upsetting. DHSC Mild == don't need hospital, not "the sniffles".

now im really logging off
 

 

The 90% comment I made was literally quoted on the radio today (R5), not the best source I know and I can't even remember who said it. Also should point out it referred to people not fully vaccinated and received a booster, so will include single and double jabbed individuals. However, I have seen plenty other data which shows lack of vaccination, along with age, is by far the greatest risk to hospitalisation, ICU, and death. As you would expect with a vaccine with a 90 to 95% efficacy rate against serious illness and a sizable minority refusing it. 

 

Agree with much else you say, sorry for the loss of your mate. It's not a mild illness for everyone, even those who are fully vaccinated. 

[scoobos 297]

Everyone's saying it (everyones unvaxxed in ITU) mate, its been going on for months. I just don't think lying is a good way to convert suspicious people (ie. anti vaxx) to get a jab - and all the data I've seen indicates it to be misleading (proper data , either peer reviewed or PHE published transparency data). Also, a  stat I saw but can't back up is a good 20% of vulnerable people cant even have the jab (immosupressed etc) and tehy are somehow being smeared as expendable because we are labelling those who dont get vaxxed. Finally, its a human right to be able to decide whether you take a vaccine or not, we can argue the morals, but surely a government shouldnt be able to force injections on anyone. There's so many reasons someone wont get a vax and its nothing to do with mistrust or conspiracy, it could just be a genuine medical condition (mental is just the same as physical).

And yeah, my post is in no way saying that getting vaccinated doesnt help, it helps absolutely massively - I think the last check against delta was power of 80 or something!

That opening line by PHE says it all really. If its 80% effective then the 20% are going to have problems. Which again rides against this rhetoric that everyone is unvaccinated who is in hospital ICU wards, or that the vaccine is "enough".

Same thing pisses me off with the use of the word endemic. A Novel virus cant be endemic for like a decade, not a bloody year and now you google and see all these misreports of what endemic even means.

In our case , its "it's everywhere, we may as well give up, because nothing will work" Look at France etc - look at their hundreds of thousands of cases (yep, because they count EVERY TIME they have it, not just once and you are struck off the figures). Total manipulation by SA, UK, Brazil and USA (until recently) .. Are we saying everyone else has it wrong and is miscounting - yes, that's been the denial line from the beginning. It's like Climate change denial and flat earthing, consensus wins. 

(all 2 cents again!)

Edited January 19, 2022 by scoobos

[Renton 17824]

Just to pick you up on people who can't have the vaccine, I'd quite like to see the source where 20% of vulnerable people can't have it. This normally applies to live vaccines like MMR, not inactivated vaccine vectors or mRNA vaccines. The SPC for Pfizer Biontech is quite clear there are no contraindications other than "Hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the excipients listed in section 6.1.", which is the pharma equivalent of "May contain nuts":

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-of-product-characteristics-for-covid-19-vaccine-pfizerbiontech

 

It's quite possible the vaccine is much less effective in immunocompromised people, but I can't see a mechanism for it being a safety issue. I'm sorry, but I just don't there is any rational reason for virtually anyone to decline the vaccine and those that have declined it have massively contributed to the severity of this pandemic imo. Of course its a human right to refuse it but I have no moral difficulties at all blocking these people from public interactions wherever possible. 

[Rayvin 4964]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

I’d ask how reliable / independent Media Bias / Fact Check is (genuine question as i don’t know). I suppose my take is the Guardian isn’t spreading hate in the same way the Mail is but that’s an entirely different matter really. I’m not a particular fan of the Guardian and haven’t been for a long time. Like Rayvin I have a problem with a lot of the editorial stuff which is, quite frankly, well into the realms of self parody. It’s quite interesting to see it portrayed as being pretty unreliable and almost as bad as the Mail on that. I can’t really comment due to reading it so rarely now. 

 

In fairness, the same site has the Telegraph as mixed too, so maybe they just have very high standards? If the Telegraph is on the same level then I think I can support the idea. It is definitely selective at times, and the notion here seems to be that not covering things counts in their assessment too.

[Alex 30450]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

In fairness, the same site has the Telegraph as mixed too, so maybe they just have very high standards? If the Telegraph is on the same level then I think I can support the idea. It is definitely selective at times, and the notion here seems to be that not covering things counts in their assessment too.

Which is fair enough because what you don’t cover can be as important as what you do cover. I suppose it’s still people making a subjective decision on what should and shouldn’t be covered in terms of the assessment but that’s arguably inevitable in any kind of ‘fact checking’ / bias assessment 

[Renton 17824]

The Telegraph used to be a quality paper but is a joke now. As for Guardian editorials, who in the right mind would read thise? The live feed is excellent and very accurate though.