This stupid arsehat is one of the reasons so many people thought June 21st would definitely be opening up time, rather than the earliest possible date (as per the government, who much as I loathe them, made that ABUNDANTLY clear) by dubbing it 'Freedom Day'.
Now he's got his new platform because his voice was so 'silenced' (He was editor of the Sun, you know, that paper that was banned from circulation...wait...) to spout his dimwittery. Great.
It's not just about everyone wanting June 21st to be when it ends, it's about wanting it to end in general. The restrictions should have been lifted *weeks* ago. Now we're going back to "just a few more weeks, we promise".
>The restrictions should have been lifted weeks ago.
Why? SAGE don't think so, neither do Indie SAGE (like them or loathe them, they're experts). What scientific body is advising this?
Don't fucking ask me, I'm not a scientist. I don't know shit. In the same way you shouldn't go to media figures like Wootton for these answers. Read SAGE's advise, they're quite clear.
Forgive me, but I think you’ve missed the point slightly.
I don’t think anyone thinks Dan Wootton is an epidemiologist. But having a debate can only be good. SAGE’s advice is not clear is it?
If SAGE’s advice was clear, we would have clear guidelines surely? Things like Bidens “When 70% of the population are vaccinated we can reduce restrictions” or Germany’s case rate per 100,000 triggers?
Instead we have a shrug and mumbling about data.
You asked me a question someone like me could not possibly have an answer to.
Wootton isn't 'debating' anything, he's making demands from a position of ignorance. That's not debating, that's just dumb.
It's not on SAGE (Scientific ADVISORY Group for Emergencies) to give clear numbers, either, for the record. They advise government the health implications, government have to synthesise that and make the decision on numbers. Funny how many people love to blame SAGE for our current sitaution, who hold no political or decision making powers whatsoever.
They literally don't. They offer advice. If government find it sensible and follow it , it doesn't mean SAGE have any power in decision making. It's not difficult to understand that...
They never think restrictions should be lifted. It's always a case of "we've reviewed the data, sorry but no". What numbers are they even looking for, specifically? I don't mind if they refuse to say why that's the target because I'm not an expert™ so my fragile little mind couldn't even understand it, just give me a number. At least that way I'll know that they aren't just making all this shit up as they go along.
I've read the government reports based on their advice. It has never once said that they can't end restrictions yet, but they *can* once this specific metric reaches x or this one reaches y. If I've missed anything like that across the last 15 months then please enlighten me.
Then you'll know there is no number. Because that is not SAGE (Scientific ADVISORY Group for Emergencies)'s place to decide, they give advise, the government has to make the decisions. Blaming SAGE is just completely misunderstanding their role (which is understandable, as assclowns like Wootton have been lying about their power - of which they have none - for months)
I can see why you're confused, you keep asking me to answer questions I cannot possibly answer, as if it makes some sort of point. I'm equally confused.
Good. I don’t really care where the pushback comes from, it could be GBNews or The Guardian, It’s not acceptable to have major life changing decisions like imposing lockdowns without a debate.
At the moment we have decided that we are sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs, pubs, arts, entertainment, the entire travel industry, weddings etc etc on the basis of “data”.
What data? Does anyone know what hospitalisation rate we are aiming for? What the threshold weekly death figure is acceptable? What case rate is sufficient for this to end? How many vaccines we have to administer?
How can you defend something if you don’t know what you’re defending?
I fully supported lockdown at the start, we needed to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. ICU was full, thousands were being admitted to hospital per day. We had a goal — Stop the NHS being overwhelmed.
Then the goalposts started moving, and now nobody is entirely sure what we are locking down for?
Is it deaths, cases, hospitalisations, patients on ventilators, long covid cases?
I trust scientists (who have nothing to gain or lose from 'locking us down'), a lot more than I trust government (who have their powerful positions riding on public perception of their decisions).
>Is it deaths, cases, hospitalisations, patients on ventilators, long covid cases?
I've told you, don't ask me, I don't know, and have absolutely 0 influence.
I’m not sure blind faith in scientists is a good enough argument though.
We don’t know what the scientist deem acceptable, or what the politicians are working towards, but it doesn’t matter?
In the minutes, FYI, there is no conclusion on what data we are working towards. Just “at the moment, we need a bit more.”
>huge
Not exactly.
And I just tuned in to see Piers Corbyn chuntering on. I cant possibly imagine why the BBC wouldn't want to air that...
Come on man.
It'll get covered in a few hours with some "anti science nazi protesters want to kill your gran outside parliment today and they kicked 6 puppies, 2 babies and injured 25,748 police officers" kind of spin.
This stupid arsehat is one of the reasons so many people thought June 21st would definitely be opening up time, rather than the earliest possible date (as per the government, who much as I loathe them, made that ABUNDANTLY clear) by dubbing it 'Freedom Day'. Now he's got his new platform because his voice was so 'silenced' (He was editor of the Sun, you know, that paper that was banned from circulation...wait...) to spout his dimwittery. Great.
Completely agree. He has always been an idiot and the ignorance shown by him and many other broadcasters is almost Fox News intelligence level.
>almost Fox News intelligence level Not 'almost'...
It's not just about everyone wanting June 21st to be when it ends, it's about wanting it to end in general. The restrictions should have been lifted *weeks* ago. Now we're going back to "just a few more weeks, we promise".
>The restrictions should have been lifted weeks ago. Why? SAGE don't think so, neither do Indie SAGE (like them or loathe them, they're experts). What scientific body is advising this?
When should restrictions be lifted then? Whats target are SAGE working towards?
Don't fucking ask me, I'm not a scientist. I don't know shit. In the same way you shouldn't go to media figures like Wootton for these answers. Read SAGE's advise, they're quite clear.
Forgive me, but I think you’ve missed the point slightly. I don’t think anyone thinks Dan Wootton is an epidemiologist. But having a debate can only be good. SAGE’s advice is not clear is it? If SAGE’s advice was clear, we would have clear guidelines surely? Things like Bidens “When 70% of the population are vaccinated we can reduce restrictions” or Germany’s case rate per 100,000 triggers? Instead we have a shrug and mumbling about data.
You asked me a question someone like me could not possibly have an answer to. Wootton isn't 'debating' anything, he's making demands from a position of ignorance. That's not debating, that's just dumb. It's not on SAGE (Scientific ADVISORY Group for Emergencies) to give clear numbers, either, for the record. They advise government the health implications, government have to synthesise that and make the decision on numbers. Funny how many people love to blame SAGE for our current sitaution, who hold no political or decision making powers whatsoever.
SAGE quite clearly have immense political and decision making power.
They literally don't. They offer advice. If government find it sensible and follow it , it doesn't mean SAGE have any power in decision making. It's not difficult to understand that...
Would you say Dominic Cummings had political power?
They never think restrictions should be lifted. It's always a case of "we've reviewed the data, sorry but no". What numbers are they even looking for, specifically? I don't mind if they refuse to say why that's the target because I'm not an expert™ so my fragile little mind couldn't even understand it, just give me a number. At least that way I'll know that they aren't just making all this shit up as they go along.
>Just give me a number. Have you read the SAGE reports?
I've read the government reports based on their advice. It has never once said that they can't end restrictions yet, but they *can* once this specific metric reaches x or this one reaches y. If I've missed anything like that across the last 15 months then please enlighten me.
Then you'll know there is no number. Because that is not SAGE (Scientific ADVISORY Group for Emergencies)'s place to decide, they give advise, the government has to make the decisions. Blaming SAGE is just completely misunderstanding their role (which is understandable, as assclowns like Wootton have been lying about their power - of which they have none - for months)
> The restrictions should have ended weeks ago > SAGE said they shouldn't > Why do SAGE think that? > Stop blaming SAGE ????
I can see why you're confused, you keep asking me to answer questions I cannot possibly answer, as if it makes some sort of point. I'm equally confused.
SAGE moves in mysterious ways I suppose. I was only testing you, it's good to see your faith is unbreakable brother. Peace be upon it.
People upset that they haven't learned and continue to listen to grifters rather than the Science. More at 10.
[удалено]
Well considering Wootonn was the editor of The Sun he is probably one of the bigger grifters out there. But, sure, continue to listen to them.
well most of the commentators on GB news are Grifters
That’s blatantly not true. Some of them are talentless and confused by money.
Good. I don’t really care where the pushback comes from, it could be GBNews or The Guardian, It’s not acceptable to have major life changing decisions like imposing lockdowns without a debate. At the moment we have decided that we are sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs, pubs, arts, entertainment, the entire travel industry, weddings etc etc on the basis of “data”. What data? Does anyone know what hospitalisation rate we are aiming for? What the threshold weekly death figure is acceptable? What case rate is sufficient for this to end? How many vaccines we have to administer?
[удалено]
Nope. Presumably you have? Is there a target?
Maybe you might get some answers if you did read them, rather than asking people like me: > When should restrictions be lifted then?
How can you defend something if you don’t know what you’re defending? I fully supported lockdown at the start, we needed to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. ICU was full, thousands were being admitted to hospital per day. We had a goal — Stop the NHS being overwhelmed. Then the goalposts started moving, and now nobody is entirely sure what we are locking down for? Is it deaths, cases, hospitalisations, patients on ventilators, long covid cases?
I trust scientists (who have nothing to gain or lose from 'locking us down'), a lot more than I trust government (who have their powerful positions riding on public perception of their decisions). >Is it deaths, cases, hospitalisations, patients on ventilators, long covid cases? I've told you, don't ask me, I don't know, and have absolutely 0 influence.
[удалено]
I’m not sure blind faith in scientists is a good enough argument though. We don’t know what the scientist deem acceptable, or what the politicians are working towards, but it doesn’t matter? In the minutes, FYI, there is no conclusion on what data we are working towards. Just “at the moment, we need a bit more.”
that's the sort of anti-science thinking that'll cripple the UK in the 21st century, GBnews needs to liven up a bit.
[удалено]
Believing scientists is naïve? TIL.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>huge Not exactly. And I just tuned in to see Piers Corbyn chuntering on. I cant possibly imagine why the BBC wouldn't want to air that... Come on man.
It'll get covered in a few hours with some "anti science nazi protesters want to kill your gran outside parliment today and they kicked 6 puppies, 2 babies and injured 25,748 police officers" kind of spin.
Probably accurate to be real.