UKH

Here Prof John Lee explains why our Covid obsession and lockdown policy is causing more harm than good:

https://podcasts.apple.com/ch/podcast/just-one-more-heave/id1514949294?i=10...

In reply to True Dat:

Another propaganda post. Yawn 🥱.

In reply to True Dat:

That would be Professor John Lee, ex-pathologist who isn't a epidemiologist but is now a Spectator columnist?

In reply to True Dat:

I think you should speak with your GP about your concerns.

In reply to True Dat:

Here Prof John Lee explains why, as a serial attention seeker, he started spouting anti lockdown crap 16 months ago and has repeatedly doubled down again and again ever since, despite data, evidence and common sense, mainly due to his enormous ego.

In reply to True Dat:

Here another Russian sock-puppet tries to inject bollocks into the whole COVID thing

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Better than injecting the whole COVID thing into your bollocks though...

In reply to Stichtplate:

If lockdown, hygiene and social distancing don't help prevent disease then the whole theory that nasties are physicals things (eg bacteria, viruses, parasites & prions) spread in the air, physical contact, surfaces, bodily fluids, food, water and insect bites etc must be wrong.

Perhaps they think disease is caused by bad spirits, witches, big pharma or Bill Gates.

In reply to Sean_J:

Bloody hell, that vaccination programme is brutal where you are

In reply to elsewhere:

I have engaged with several conspiracy theory nutjobs who do indeed believe most illnesses are caused by big Pharma and Bill Gates.

On the plus side, I've been hugely heartened to discover that people who can't think their way out of a paper bag can still sum up the wit to open a social media account and regurgitate endless shite off YouTube.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I see Mr Dat has "left the building"!

Maybe all this is a double bluff and the whole thing about conspiracy theorists is its itself a conspiracy theory? It's all a bit aeroplane on a treadmill for me....

In reply to True Dat:

T minus 109 and counting til this poster is banned.....

In reply to elsewhere:

Ah now the whole two injection thing makes sense!

In reply to john arran:

There have been plenty of those from both sides

In reply to timjones:

Absolute nonsense.

In reply to timjones:

False. 

In reply to Wainers44:

There was always a simple answer to 'aeroplane on a treadmill' (it takes off), and I suspect it's the same for the your double bluff theory, just wrong.

True Dat is now restricted from posting.

In reply to wintertree:

Does your dictionary have a different definition of propoganda to mine?

In reply to timjones:

I've seen almost no posts or posters seeking to over-represent the potential consequences of this pandemic.

In reply to wintertree:

Does propoganda have to "over-represent" anything or can it be information presented in order to further a point of view?

In reply to timjones:

I'm not going to play silly little word games here.

In reply to wintertree:

Typical, just dismiss anything that doesn't match your world viiew as "silly".

How can someone so obsessive  about numbers be so free to dismiss any consideration of other things that doesn't match their own world view?

In reply to timjones:

I made my point.  It stands alone without being dragged round a bunch of messages playing silly buggers over the definition of a word.

I'm not "obsessive", I've taken the time to make my understanding and interpretation of them known, particularly when I consider others to be abusing them to support a case that the numbers do not support.

I'm happy to point out when I think this specifics of another world view - acceptable as they are to the individual - are irrelevant or dangerous to the Covid situation.  For example "We all die anyway" is not a justification for a relaxed attitude to control measures that would have seen the collapse of healthcare and many early deaths for all sorts of reasons.

In reply to wintertree:

Is it really so hard to understand that some people might discuss controls on a more philosophical level than your own?

Is repeatedly trying to stifle that debate any better than false propoganda?

In reply to timjones:

Not at all, but that does not mean their personal philosophies have any relevance when extended to the societal level during a pandemic.

I'm sorry, but disagreeing with someone trying to extend their (defensible) personal philosophy to a societal level because it doesn't translate, and making the reasons for doing so clear is not "trying to stifle debate".    

You, right now, on another thread, are asking for posters not to be allowed to use pseudonyms - something which will directly stifle debate.   This appears to completely hypocritical of you.   A bit like demanding some other posters make themselves instantly identifiable whilst you hide behind a name that's so prevalent it identifies nobody to your profile.

In reply to wintertree:

Surely societal attitudes are the collective sum of everybodies personal philosophies and you have to consider those personal philosophies when considiering societal actions during a pandemic?

Disagreement is fine, repeatedly attempting to shut down debate that isn't following the pattern that you beieve it should  is not acceptable.

Why would it be hypocritical? 

I post using my real name.

In reply to timjones:

No, because things don't sum linearly, especially in a pandemic.  The whole purpose of government, state and society is to deal with the bit where personal philosophies don't work if just applied en-mass over many people.  

I'm not trying to shut down debate.  I'm offering debate - a different view to yours.  I'm not asking you to be banned, I'm not belittling your personal views, but pointing out how they don't translate to society. (Edit: pointing out why I don't think they translate meaningfully in to an excuse against some control measures)

The only reason to want real names is to give you a chance at identifying other posters, which you could do for many of us with our real names.  Yet, you are effectively anonymous even with your real name.

In reply to True Dat:

I dont have time to read this, but I do wonder why looking down this forum there are half a dozen Covid threads, yet the burning down of a town in Canada because it got to 49 deg C (almost certainly as a result of human-induced climate change) seems to have drawn little attention. Which do we think is the bigger threat?

In reply to wintertree:

The fact that they do not sum linearly does not mean that personal opinions do not need to be considered.  real life does not always conform to mathematics or statistics.

We also need to consiider the fact that both maths and stats can be twisted to match agendas

You have frequently been downright rude to others in your attempts to stifle debate.

Rubbish.

In reply to Richard Horn:

Dunno? Why did you put in the effort of posting this reply rather than start a thread on the matter?

In reply to Richard Horn:

It's because instead of starting a worthy thread on climate change, you decided to indulge on whataboutery on this thread.

In reply to timjones:

That's not really the case when we end up with London busses converted into ambulances and 4,000 people a day going in to hospital because they can't breath properly, and many more people without Covid being denied hospital treatments.

I've been very rude to the person who keeps popping up with a series of false accounts to push an endless litany of lies and misinformation.   I have nothing but utter contempt for them and their attempt to frame lies, misinformation and selectively framed half-truths as "the other side of the debate".  They are not here acting in good will, and I am sorry that you apparently can't tell that.

In reply to True Dat:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-57189165

Dimple Arora was a 34 year-old-dentist with everything to live for when she died of Covid-19.

Her husband Ravish told the BBC's Orla Guerin that his wife's death should be a warning to the UK.

More than 250,000 people have died of Covid-19 in India so far, according to official figures.

In reply to wintertree:

That is pretty obvious but does it juatify your repeated attempts to stifle debate on an online forum?

I admire your confidence that you are correct in that theory but it does not excuse rudeness to long time posters who don't subscribe to your own personal opinions.

Maybe we can form our own opinions on the veracity of other posters without you policing?

In reply to timjones:

You claim to want debate, yet the act of me disagreeing with you is apparently an attempt to stifle debate.

This makes no sense.  If there wasn't disagreement, there'd be no debate.

I'm not policing them.  I'm giving my opinions.  You are free to form your own.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Fair point... 

In reply to timjones:

It's just you being silly, Tim. Not for the first time.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Sorry I think you are confusing my post with a serious comment.  You need to adjust your flippant ometer. 

Mr Dat or Matt, or whatever he was is gone and surprise surprise didn't want to enter into an evidence based debate with Mr Wintertree, UKCs objectivity guardian. 

Anyway that's sorted Mr Dats bullsh*t, back to the aeroplane......

In reply to wintertree:

You regularly make a show of ceasing debate when simeone elses views do.not match your own.

Your attitude to the suggestion that not all propganda is false is a good example.

If it becomes too common it starts to look like policing

For 12 months you have jumped onto just about everything that I have posted on here, often within no more than a few minutes of my post.

Is it stalking, bullying or just too much spare time to kill coupled with a lack pf awareness of the consequences of your actions?

In reply to timjones:

There's plenty of good debate on here around covid and our response, yes occasionally it gets robust but it goes on. However, there is no point debating a troll, that's not what they're here for, they deserve the short shrift they get whereas folk like yourself holding some minority views on covid while engaged in honest debate, you, they remain and are engaged constructively even if we rarely reach agreement.

There is quite clearly at least one person doggedly engaged in peddling covid misinformation to this forum under dozens of pseudonyms.

When someone's well prepared and intentionally misleading us, without others looking out for each other that's very tricky.

jk

In reply to timjones:

Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

Words have agreed meanings for a reason.

jk

In reply to timjones:

I refuse to engage with "debate" with the pop-up poster hiding behind endless pseudonyms (funny, don't you disagree with that practice when used once, let alone dozens of times?).

Refusing to play chess with pigeons is not stifling debate.  Me choosing not to address their points is not stifling debate.

No, I just didn't want to get drawn in to playing silly buggers over word definitions.  If that's the way you want to take the debate, I suggest you go to a dictionary club.  I made my point, you made your point, there's nothing further to be gained there. 

So you complain when I do reply that I'm stifling debate, and when I don't reply, I'm stifling debate?  You seem confused, to say the least.

You started this conversation with your post clearly aimed at me on the now locked thread.  

Edit: I just looked at your profile - of the most recent 12 posts it lists for you...

• The older 9 I have not engaged with you on anything you've said.  I've only posted on one of those threads I believe.
• On #10, I have not engaged with you at all, but you had the last post and it was an accusation directly levelled at me, I had not engaged with you on it.  I did raise the point on the pseudonyms thread, it seemed directly relevant

I think if I go through your posts to older threads (I won't, got better things to do), I think I would find that I have replied to "very little" of what you have posted, not "just about everything" as you falsely claim.  At this point you're basically levelling an accusation at me based on a provable lie, so I suggest you take some time away for your own sakes.  I've certainly had comments on some posts you've made on Covid, but as you're all to aware I think what I had to say is consistent with what I've had to see to many other people, and is nothing personal or special about you.

In reply to jkarran:

Lop out the bit between the commas, propganda is information that is used to further a cause or view.

Do you honestly think that  propoganda has not been used as a tool to promote good behaviour during the last 12 months?

It's  better to accept that propoganda happens and learn to discern the difference between good and bad than to pretend that all propoganda is bad.

In reply to wintertree:

How often do just simply not reply, you didn't have to make a show of your decision not to discuss the nature of propoganda.

What makes you so sure that I was aimed at you?

Guilty conscience?

In reply to timjones:

Why are you taking it so badly that I made a point of telling the third party pop-up poster that I am not going to engage with them on their lies, misinformation and half-truths?

Why weren't you calling them out on their use of endless disposable pseudonyms?  That's an issue you clearly have with me right?  Why doesn't that issue apply to the pop-up poster, instead you demand that I engage with them.

This is a frankly bizarre discussion. 

Oh come on.  Here is the post for anyone else who cares enough to see that someone is arguing black is white here - https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/covid_-_your_response_to_anothe...

(I doubt that anyone cares enough to follow it TBH).

In reply to timjones:

Why on earth would I do that, I copied and pasted a dictionary definition. As I said, words have agreed meanings for a reason, when we each start making up our own meanings we stop communicating clearly.

Can you provide examples of what you consider pro public health propaganda? FWIW I can think of some isolated examples from social media but nothing like as misleading, organised or resourced as the let 'er rip mob's.

By its nature it's misleading. The only way one might consider that not bad was where it sways someone toward one's own point of view. Personally I'd rather do that through clear, reasoned and honest discussion, not by deception, if I need deception to make my case then my argument is probably horseshit and I probably deserve to be called on it.

jk

In reply to wintertree:

It was a reply to a post that was about you, do you have a problem wirh that?

You tend to be abrupt and rude with people that don't share your views on Covid. That may be acceptable if you are always correct in your quick conclusion that they are trolling but how do you ensure that you are right in your assumptions?

Whilst you quite rightly point out that you have not replied to 9 out of 12 of the my most recent responses to threads, the interesting fact is that none of those 9 threads appear to relate to Covid.  

In reply to timjones:

No, I don't have a problem with it.

I mentioned it because you were accusing me of almost always jumping on your posts (in reality, looking at the thread archive, I almost never reply to your posts) and. was making the point that you initiated this set of discussions, not me.  It's just bad luck that said thread locked out and I couldn't reply there.  To simultaneously complain about me replying to you, and to put that post out there seems pretty hypocritical TBH.

I am very abrupt and sometimes quite rude with the pop-up poster(s) that plague this site, hiding behind an ever changing range of pseudonyms to push trivially discreditable misinformation, lies and half-truths.

Find me a brand new poster who signs up, only engages with the "Politics" forum and Covid threads typically on "Off Belay" and who isn't here on bad faith.  I still tend to keep my piece until I'm sure of what's going on.  Not been wrong so far as far as I can tell.

That has no relevance to your patently false claim that "For 12 months you have jumped onto just about everything that I have posted on here".  That's simply and totally untrue.  You have claimed I am "stalking" you.  My counter claim before and now remains that I am not - I am consistently replying to posters on Covid topics with no regard for who they are, but for what they are saying.  This in no way supports your malicious accusation of me "stalking" you, far from it.  

In reply to timjones:

The problem many of us have with your viewpoint is that it seems to be based on misunderstanding of the issue of the pandemic response. Just because you hold a view which is shared by sobe other people, it doesn't mean that there are two valid sides of a debate which are deserving of any consideration.

It reminds of "debates" framed along the lines of:

Muslims - how dangerous are they?

Immigration - how can we stop it?

Transsexuals - how can we protect your children?

And so we have...

Covid - is it worth controlling?

These aren't debates worth having, because considering the question seriously just serves to undermine the basic policies and attitudes we need hold as a consensus if we're going to live together successfully as a society. I'm not saying it should be illegal to deviate from that consensus, but those that do aren't worth engaging with.

In reply to timjones:

There is no way that can be verified, unless you go to extreme lengths and get yourself and your passport verified by those in charge of the forum, with the results made public.

You are therefore asking us to believe you are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, whilst simultaneously stating that others are lying/exaggerating.

I choose therefore to leave the concept of whether you are or are not "Tim Jones" as "not proven".

In reply to Richard Horn:

To us in the UK - Covid, at least in the short term.

In the long term climate change needs to be addressed - possibly after the world's population has been reduced this may be easier. Certainly at present ANY government has got to deal with the more immediate threat, as there is no sense putting all the effort into the future if people don't have a future.

In reply to Sean_J:

Someone tried to get the next best thing, though:

https://www.aap.com.au/fake-articles-covid-19-vaccine-penis-injection-advic...