Coronavirus

[belton rover]

I notice that you two didn’t correct River Don when he backed up ravens  point that the decision was made by the Chief Medical Officer.

Mind you, he is on your side.

I wouldn’t bring that one up on here, Hound.

[drfchound]

I wasn't correcting anyone Hound. I was stating a fact.

How strange that you randomly came up with it straight after I posted about it.
Amazing.

[Ldr]

I wasn't correcting anyone Hound. I was stating a fact.

How strange that you randomly came up with it straight after I posted about it.
Amazing.

You're not saying BST posts in bad faith are you?

[drfchound]

LoL. How can I when his post was nothing to do with me.

[Filo]

I didn’t realise we had sides on here, I thought everyone had their own opinions, except Hound, who seems to be the master of the leading question

[drfchound]

Come on Filo.
You know who backs who up on this site.
Out of interest though, how does my asking a leading question stop me from having my own opinion.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes Hound. You're right. I sit here just waiting to trip you up and belittle you. And you fell into my trap again!

[River Don]

I didn't specifically back anyone up on that point Hound. I didn't know who took the 12 week decision, I knew the CMO thought it the best advice under the circumstances.

I was more interested in highlighting that delaying the Oxford vaccine might well improve immunity to CV19, I don't think that's widely understood.

[Filo]

Come on Filo.
You know who backs who up on this site.
Out of interest though, how does my asking a leading question stop me from having my own opinion.

Nothing stops you having your own opinion, it’s just that no one has seen your opinions amongst the many leading questions you post, which by the way you appear to admit to

[wilts rover]

Come on Filo.
You know who backs who up on this site.
Out of interest though, how does my asking a leading question stop me from having my own opinion.

Well you appear to be telling other people that they don't have individual opinions.

Somewhat arrogant I would have thought hound, not like you.

[redarmy82]

It sounds like there are now almost 100 confirmed cases of the SA variant now in the UK, and if what Hancock is reported as saying  is correct and the vaccine is half as effective against it, does that mean the vaccine would have to be tweaked and the whole vaccine process started over.

If every time there is a new variant the vaccine has to be changed, then we may never be able to get through this.

[drfchound]

Yes Hound. You're right. I sit here just waiting to trip you up and belittle you. And you fell into my trap again!

I might as well start with you before going on to the rest of the gang.

No, you probably don’t, but you do seem to jump on lots of my posts.

[drfchound]

I didn't specifically back anyone up on that point Hound. I didn't know who took the 12 week decision, I knew the CMO thought it the best advice under the circumstances.

I was more interested in highlighting that delaying the Oxford vaccine might well improve immunity to CV19, I don't think that's widely understood.

I beg to differ RD (about not backin anyone up) but see posts 9623 and 9624.
Very clear to see.

[drfchound]

Come on Filo.
You know who backs who up on this site.
Out of interest though, how does my asking a leading question stop me from having my own opinion.

Nothing stops you having your own opinion, it’s just that no one has seen your opinions amongst the many leading questions you post, which by the way you appear to admit to

Filo, I often post my opinions but invariably someone comes along and tells me I am wrong, even though the opinions are my own.

[drfchound]

Come on Filo.
You know who backs who up on this site.
Out of interest though, how does my asking a leading question stop me from having my own opinion.

Well you appear to be telling other people that they don't have individual opinions.

Somewhat arrogant I would have thought hound, not like you.

Wilts, thanks for the kind words but I have to say that me saying that certain posters back up others isn’t suggesting that each one doesn’t have their own opinions (in my opinion of course).
However there is often a collective “putting down” effect in response to something I might have posted.

I do sometimes ask questions of course.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes Hound. You're right. I sit here just waiting to trip you up and belittle you. And you fell into my trap again!

I might as well start with you before going on to the rest of the gang.

No, you probably don’t, but you do seem to jump on lots of my posts.

Hound.

I do wish there atmosphere in these discussions was less toxic and less assuming of the motives behind posts. So genuine thanks for accepting that I don't troll you in order to smack you down.

There is a world of difference between robust, honest differences of opinion, and even arguing over what is factually correct, and nasty personal vendettas. It'd be grand if we all came from the angle of assuming no-one here was deliberately engaging in the latter. Then maybe fewer differences of opinion would spiral down into what effectively be one vendettas.

[River Don]

I didn't specifically back anyone up on that point Hound. I didn't know who took the 12 week decision, I knew the CMO thought it the best advice under the circumstances.

I was more interested in highlighting that delaying the Oxford vaccine might well improve immunity to CV19, I don't think that's widely understood.

I beg to differ RD (about not backin anyone up) but see posts 9623 and 9624.
Very clear to see.

I made the point it wasn't a decision taken without careful consideration. In quoting Raven I wasn't agreeing the CMO made it. TBH it didn't cross my mind that it was particularly significant point when I made the post.

[belton rover]

Yes Hound. You're right. I sit here just waiting to trip you up and belittle you. And you fell into my trap again!

I might as well start with you before going on to the rest of the gang.

No, you probably don’t, but you do seem to jump on lots of my posts.

Hound.

I do wish there atmosphere in these discussions was less toxic and less assuming of the motives behind posts. So genuine thanks for accepting that I don't troll you in order to smack you down.

There is a world of difference between robust, honest differences of opinion, and even arguing over what is factually correct, and nasty personal vendettas. It'd be grand if we all came from the angle of assuming no-one here was deliberately engaging in the latter. Then maybe fewer differences of opinion would spiral down into what effectively be one vendettas.

Well said.

[drfchound]

I didn't specifically back anyone up on that point Hound. I didn't know who took the 12 week decision, I knew the CMO thought it the best advice under the circumstances.

I was more interested in highlighting that delaying the Oxford vaccine might well improve immunity to CV19, I don't think that's widely understood.

I beg to differ RD (about not backin anyone up) but see posts 9623 and 9624.
Very clear to see.

I made the point it wasn't a decision taken without careful consideration. In quoting Raven I wasn't agreeing the CMO made it. TBH it didn't cross my mind that it was particularly significant point when I made the post.

In a non toxic kind of way RD.
Raven said that he thought the decision (12 weeks) was taken by the CMO.
You said “it was, but not without careful consideration”.

That surely is backing up what Raven said.

[drfchound]

Yes Hound. You're right. I sit here just waiting to trip you up and belittle you. And you fell into my trap again!

I might as well start with you before going on to the rest of the gang.

No, you probably don’t, but you do seem to jump on lots of my posts.

Hound.

I do wish there atmosphere in these discussions was less toxic and less assuming of the motives behind posts. So genuine thanks for accepting that I don't troll you in order to smack you down.

There is a world of difference between robust, honest differences of opinion, and even arguing over what is factually correct, and nasty personal vendettas. It'd be grand if we all came from the angle of assuming no-one here was deliberately engaging in the latter. Then maybe fewer differences of opinion would spiral down into what effectively be one vendettas.

If only that could happen.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

To reply to the numerous replies, I don't know the answers and it's not necessarily my view. A conversation with a colleague came up the other day and it did make me see a little more the argument that I wouldn't necessarily favour that we should live lives more openly.  That and seeing the impact on my close family getting more pronounced by the day.

As a society we cannot take it for years and years.  The list of losses to all of our lives is huge.  I think we have a bit more in us yet but there is a limit before as a society we cannot take it anymore.

But, how do we weigh that up versus the impact on health services?  At some point society will fold and I don't know the way out of that. Overall we have to hope the vaccine does enough to make the risks acceptable.

[redarmy82]

To reply to the numerous replies, I don't know the answers and it's not necessarily my view. A conversation with a colleague came up the other day and it did make me see a little more the argument that I wouldn't necessarily favour that we should live lives more openly.  That and seeing the impact on my close family getting more pronounced by the day.

As a society we cannot take it for years and years.  The list of losses to all of our lives is huge.  I think we have a bit more in us yet but there is a limit before as a society we cannot take it anymore.

But, how do we weigh that up versus the impact on health services?  At some point society will fold and I don't know the way out of that. Overall we have to hope the vaccine does enough to make the risks acceptable.

The vaccine isn't going to end restrictions. The tone from the government had completely changed. The vaccine is needed to stop you getting ill. The chances of going back to any kind of normality are going to be a pipe dream for a long long time.

International travel as we were used to is finished.

We have to accept that normal life is going to be very very different than what we know

[Bentley Bullet]

Yes Hound. You're right. I sit here just waiting to trip you up and belittle you. And you fell into my trap again!

I might as well start with you before going on to the rest of the gang.

No, you probably don’t, but you do seem to jump on lots of my posts.

Hound.

I do wish there atmosphere in these discussions was less toxic and less assuming of the motives behind posts. So genuine thanks for accepting that I don't troll you in order to smack you down.

There is a world of difference between robust, honest differences of opinion, and even arguing over what is factually correct, and nasty personal vendettas. It'd be grand if we all came from the angle of assuming no-one here was deliberately engaging in the latter. Then maybe fewer differences of opinion would spiral down into what effectively be one vendettas.

If only that could happen.

Unfortunately, there's been an epidemic of politically biased comments on this forum for over five years. This is a lesson in what happens when epidemics are allowed to continue without restrictions.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB. Everyone, everywhere at all times has a political opinion and philosophy which shapes their interactions, whether they are aware of it or not. That is even more the case when living through intensely political times like we have done through the Austerity, Brexit, Trump times.

If you disagree with someone's opinions, argue with the opinions. Explain with reason why you think they are wrong. Don't try to shut down discussion by arguing that having political opinions automatically makes someone's arguments invalid and unfair. Doing that is itself THE most politically biased of approaches. It says that you are not prepared to address someone's points not because you can make a case against them, but because the very fact of them having a political opinion means you will ignore them.

If you can't do that, then at least be consistent in complaining about EVERYONE's political "bias" as you put it, rather than only complaining about that from one side of the political spectrum. If you don't, you are showing clear political bias yourself.

Or, if you can't even do that, then at least live up to the standard you want to set for other people by not showing political bias yourself by using lazy, politically biased insults like Captain Hindsight when discussing political figures.

[belton rover]

I’m not sure anyone on here has ever said or implied or inferred or suggested that having political opinions automatically makes someone’s argument invalid or unfair.
Though I stand to be corrected.

[drfchound]

BST, what about the posters who use disrespectful names for other politicians.
There have been so many applied to people like Johnson, Hancock etc.
That has to work both ways doesn’t it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound.

With respect, I  think you are entirely misunderstanding the whole point of my post.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. Politics is a very sensitive subject at the best of times. That's why it is considered taboo and therefore banned in many forums.  At the worst of times, like intense periods such as Brexit and the pandemic, it is so much more sensitive. When you get posters who exploit the right of free speech by only expressing one side of a story that distorts the truth of the matter it is at best scaremongering, and at worse downright dangerous. It is also bloody annoying when posts are intended to provoke people with words like 'bas**rd Boris', and 'little shite Grove', etc. It provides absolutely nothing towards improving the situation and causes distrust in anything and everything that is said by anybody and everybody.

My main contribution to these political discussions are and always have been more in objection to the way they have been conducted, and not especially what side of the argument they represent. I admit I have occasionally retaliated in a way that makes this post sound hypocritical, but in my defence of that, I do it in an attempt to level up the playing field more than siding towards any political alliance or policy.

[Axholme Lion]

To reply to the numerous replies, I don't know the answers and it's not necessarily my view. A conversation with a colleague came up the other day and it did make me see a little more the argument that I wouldn't necessarily favour that we should live lives more openly.  That and seeing the impact on my close family getting more pronounced by the day.

As a society we cannot take it for years and years.  The list of losses to all of our lives is huge.  I think we have a bit more in us yet but there is a limit before as a society we cannot take it anymore.

But, how do we weigh that up versus the impact on health services?  At some point society will fold and I don't know the way out of that. Overall we have to hope the vaccine does enough to make the risks acceptable.

The vaccine isn't going to end restrictions. The tone from the government had completely changed. The vaccine is needed to stop you getting ill. The chances of going back to any kind of normality are going to be a pipe dream for a long long time.

International travel as we were used to is finished.

We have to accept that normal life is going to be very very different than what we know

No we don't and won't. Life is for living, not hiding under the duvet for the next thirty years.

[wilts rover]

Come on Filo.
You know who backs who up on this site.
Out of interest though, how does my asking a leading question stop me from having my own opinion.

Well you appear to be telling other people that they don't have individual opinions.

Somewhat arrogant I would have thought hound, not like you.

Wilts, thanks for the kind words but I have to say that me saying that certain posters back up others isn’t suggesting that each one doesn’t have their own opinions (in my opinion of course).
However there is often a collective “putting down” effect in response to something I might have posted.

I do sometimes ask questions of course.

Not from me hound. I post if I have something to say. Sometimes I agree with posters - sometimes I disagree with time.

Clearly I am going to agree with posters that have the same views and values as mine, more than those who have different ones. And vice versa. I presume that is the same for everone else who is posting in good faith.

Don't take it personally, it is certainly not meant from me.