I ask you again, how does the BBC article “out” me.

you say

As did there own reporter the BBC Reporter Emma Barrett. Who are you to argue with her? At least I give credit where credits due.
Check out vintage reporter Eamonn Holmes, GMT, SKY News etc. too for his take on what journalists have NOT been allowed to take the government to task on. Very, very interesting.

There are also a huge number of medics on our side, those not financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. i.e. Independent scientists and medics.

600,000 is a”few”? Get real.
I believe I'm being very fair to Bill. I could list the many allegations but fair do's, lets see if the investigations come to anything.
However, these billionaires never have to stand trial do they? I give you Tony “weapons of mass destruction” Blair just for starters.

Bill Gates is funding the vaccine programme except maybe in Russia.
Yes, many labs are supposedly working on it, each have their own expertise, but Bill Gates is funding the majority of it and what he says go's i.e he who pays the piper calls the tune. Pity he has zero scientific or medical background.
Tell you what, when it comes out, lets see who is behind it. My money is on Bill Gates. Who do you think will be behind it? Would you like to place a bet?
That is a vaccine for the 99.9% who have survived very well without it. 100% in my circle.

As for only two people on here. You know it's more than that, more fakery from you to add to your 5G smear and fake allegations.

As for “only 2” smear. Look through history, many folk stood alone against what they believed was wrong and history proved them right. Trust me, I , or we, are in excellent company.

Not that we are alone, a million plus demonstrators in Germany for instance also, Would you like some of those examples from history?

Miro, I fully accept that people are getting hacked of with restrictions being placed on their way of life and it's probably fair to say that EVERYONE would prefer to have things back the way they were at the start of the year, myself included.
However, this isn't to say that they totally disagree with how things have "moved". I would suggest that its borne out of frustration and I would also expect that as time goes by, there will be some civil unrest, just as there has been in Italy.

However, dont confuse peoples frustration with them agreeing to some of your many theories.

I'm not sure that anyone knows how this thing will play out but, my best guess and it's only a guess, is that, either a vaccine will be found, even if it's something that will buy time or, that we reach a point where enough people protest and eventually, governments around the world will "gamble" and undo the many restrictions and see what the fall out is.

Perhaps we hit a point where fewer and fewer people die from the virus and therefore it becomes like a severe dose of flu, still killing big numbers but maybe at a level that governments are happy to "accept".

As I say, I dont know and I'm not sure anyone else does at this point in time.

"The World" is gambling on finding an effective vaccine and quick but, despite your many theories, I'm still not seeing a global re-set. It will be more like a recovery plan for many, many nations that are on their economic backsides.

Quote: coco the fullback "You seem to be generally agreeing with the WHO's stance that lockdowns should only be used as a method of getting the spread back under control and buy some time to put other measures in place. The number one priority was to 'flatten the curve' to avoid systemic breakdown, but this also has the effect (if done properly) of delaying the worst impact and eventually (assuming an effective vaccine) save lives. The problem is it's a false dichotomy. You can't compare 'lockdown' with 'no lockdown' as if it's action or no action. There are many ways to reduce the spread which do not require a full lockdown, depending on the progress of the virus. For starters, how is a 'lockdown' defined? Comparing curves of those with 'lockdown' and those without is somewhat unscientific. What exactly are you comparing? Are you taking into consideration other measures short of a full 'lockdown'? What about the timing? Did you compare all countries you considered to have a lockdown with all those that didn't? or just cherry-pick a few? The study I quoted earlier into the Wuhan lockdown went to great pains mathematically to separate the effects of different actions and found a significant impact of lockdown itself. The virus increases exponentially, but the curve is in reality it's a logistic function, it cannot go on forever as there are not an infinite number of people, but without herd immunity via a vaccine the curve has fake peaks by increasing or decreasing measures to reduce the R number. No I do not agree with any form of lockdowns mandated by any government institutions perpetuated by the media on their behalf. I think all individuals are free to live how they see fit. During any health crisis governments are best placed to serve people by providing fact sheets, recommendations and guidance only similar to how the Japanese government dealt with this virus. It should be entirely up to the person whether they should be "allowed" to open their "non essential" business. If you're vulnerable take extra pre cautions, if you're petrified bask yourself in the new normal and stay home at all times. Cue the "selfish" argument or you're going to overwhelm the NHS! My reply is simple if you are concerned about the health service being over run then join a march/petition to ban all people from requesting asylum while you're at it, you could even demand a ban on smoking (78,000 related deaths per year), ban fast food, ban alcohol, ban all contact sports. Why should we prioritise treating the lives of those groups of people who are putting strain on the NHS but not those who might get C19 who've chosen to get on with their lives. Where does the madness end? Recorded deaths - are you saying we should record the C19 deaths differently by increasing the number of days from 28 to 60 days from the last positive test? Do you work for the BBC? The majority of those 5,500 were binned for a good reason as people were going back into hospital at a later date for other medical reasons and were being recorded as C19. If you are referring to Sweden's performance in terms of the total number of deaths it's well documented they performed poorly due to the same mistakes as the UK; not protecting care homes, clearing out hospitals of elderly patients and refusing elderly patients treatment. This is backed up by the age of deaths - 5,271 out of 5,918 were over the age of 70. Compare Sweden to a country like Switzerland - similar population, more recorded cases but half the number of deaths as they were successful in protecting their elderly. You want me to trust a study with contributions made by the Chinese, The People's Republic of China? A country which has supposedly recorded just 85,826 out of a population of 1,439,323,776! Even the governments biggest fanboy, the BBC admit it's difficult to tell whether regional lockdowns are working https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54239538 Considering this article was reporting cases up until the end of September I'm guessing those graphs look even worse in defence of the regional lockdowns with daily reported cases now well in excess of 20,000. Oh BBC why won't you update the article for good measure? I can't tell between the countries that lockdown strongly and those that put in a few restrictive measures. I don't need to prove anything as I'm not the person ordering everyone about. At the end of the day it's the UK Governments position to back up it's claims as they are the ones shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Every measure they come up with seems to fail as they follow it with another restrictive measure. I then hear people saying the only reason why the rules don't work is because people aren't following the rules. Well you know what they say in rugby; you can't sack the players but you can sack the coach. Just wish we could sack coaches Whitty, Al and Cummings.

Quote: coco the fullback "You seem to be generally agreeing with the WHO's stance that lockdowns should only be used as a method of getting the spread back under control and buy some time to put other measures in place. The number one priority was to 'flatten the curve' to avoid systemic breakdown, but this also has the effect (if done properly) of delaying the worst impact and eventually (assuming an effective vaccine) save lives. The problem is it's a false dichotomy. You can't compare 'lockdown' with 'no lockdown' as if it's action or no action. There are many ways to reduce the spread which do not require a full lockdown, depending on the progress of the virus. For starters, how is a 'lockdown' defined? Comparing curves of those with 'lockdown' and those without is somewhat unscientific. What exactly are you comparing? Are you taking into consideration other measures short of a full 'lockdown'? What about the timing? Did you compare all countries you considered to have a lockdown with all those that didn't? or just cherry-pick a few? The study I quoted earlier into the Wuhan lockdown went to great pains mathematically to separate the effects of different actions and found a significant impact of lockdown itself. The virus increases exponentially, but the curve is in reality it's a logistic function, it cannot go on forever as there are not an infinite number of people, but without herd immunity via a vaccine the curve has fake peaks by increasing or decreasing measures to reduce the R number. No I do not agree with any form of lockdowns mandated by any government institutions perpetuated by the media on their behalf. I think all individuals are free to live how they see fit. During any health crisis governments are best placed to serve people by providing fact sheets, recommendations and guidance only similar to how the Japanese government dealt with this virus. It should be entirely up to the person whether they should be "allowed" to open their "non essential" business. If you're vulnerable take extra pre cautions, if you're petrified bask yourself in the new normal and stay home at all times. Cue the "selfish" argument or you're going to overwhelm the NHS! My reply is simple if you are concerned about the health service being over run then join a march/petition to ban all people from requesting asylum while you're at it, you could even demand a ban on smoking (78,000 related deaths per year), ban fast food, ban alcohol, ban all contact sports. Why should we prioritise treating the lives of those groups of people who are putting strain on the NHS but not those who might get C19 who've chosen to get on with their lives. Where does the madness end? Recorded deaths - are you saying we should record the C19 deaths differently by increasing the number of days from 28 to 60 days from the last positive test? Do you work for the BBC? The majority of those 5,500 were binned for a good reason as people were going back into hospital at a later date for other medical reasons and were being recorded as C19. If you are referring to Sweden's performance in terms of the total number of deaths it's well documented they performed poorly due to the same mistakes as the UK; not protecting care homes, clearing out hospitals of elderly patients and refusing elderly patients treatment. This is backed up by the age of deaths - 5,271 out of 5,918 were over the age of 70. Compare Sweden to a country like Switzerland - similar population, more recorded cases but half the number of deaths as they were successful in protecting their elderly. You want me to trust a study with contributions made by the Chinese, The People's Republic of China? A country which has supposedly recorded just 85,826 out of a population of 1,439,323,776! Even the governments biggest fanboy, the BBC admit it's difficult to tell whether regional lockdowns are working https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54239538 Considering this article was reporting cases up until the end of September I'm guessing those graphs look even worse in defence of the regional lockdowns with daily reported cases now well in excess of 20,000. Oh BBC why won't you update the article for good measure? I can't tell between the countries that lockdown strongly and those that put in a few restrictive measures. I don't need to prove anything as I'm not the person ordering everyone about. At the end of the day it's the UK Governments position to back up it's claims as they are the ones shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Every measure they come up with seems to fail as they follow it with another restrictive measure. I then hear people saying the only reason why the rules don't work is because people aren't following the rules. Well you know what they say in rugby; you can't sack the players but you can sack the coach. Just wish we could sack coaches Whitty, Al and Cummings.

I agree with the part where you think people will call you selfish

Depends what you call selfish there are the ones who don't know they are spreading covid but I'm furious after hearing my partner today telling me about a work colleague who was coughing and sputtering at her work last week, she learned today she is one of four within the week now that has caught it but she's been told that it shouldn't be a problem as they work at distance, well that might be true but who knows where it could be lurking, it's always been one of my pet hates having to work along side them that don't take any consideration to others, that is selfish when you know your not fit to be there why turn up for work and infect others, it's not about being paid now it could cost others their life.

Well said snowie.
My sister in law has had to put up with some complete tool of a woman at work who had tested positive and went back to work and announced it in the team meeting!
Needless to say, six members of staff including her have tested positive and are off work until this Friday when there isolation ends.
Slack Alice should be fired!!

Quote: MatthewTrin "No I do not agree with any form of lockdowns mandated by any government institutions perpetuated by the media on their behalf. I think all individuals are free to live how they see fit. During any health crisis governments are best placed to serve people by providing fact sheets, recommendations and guidance only similar to how the Japanese government dealt with this virus. It should be entirely up to the person whether they should be "allowed" to open their "non essential" business. If you're vulnerable take extra pre cautions, if you're petrified bask yourself in the new normal and stay home at all times. Cue the "selfish" argument or you're going to overwhelm the NHS! My reply is simple if you are concerned about the health service being over run then join a march/petition to ban all people from requesting asylum while you're at it, you could even demand a ban on smoking (78,000 related deaths per year), ban fast food, ban alcohol, ban all contact sports. Why should we prioritise treating the lives of those groups of people who are putting strain on the NHS but not those who might get C19 who've chosen to get on with their lives. Where does the madness end? Recorded deaths - are you saying we should record the C19 deaths differently by increasing the number of days from 28 to 60 days from the last positive test? Do you work for the BBC? The majority of those 5,500 were binned for a good reason as people were going back into hospital at a later date for other medical reasons and were being recorded as C19. If you are referring to Sweden's performance in terms of the total number of deaths it's well documented they performed poorly due to the same mistakes as the UK; not protecting care homes, clearing out hospitals of elderly patients and refusing elderly patients treatment. This is backed up by the age of deaths - 5,271 out of 5,918 were over the age of 70. Compare Sweden to a country like Switzerland - similar population, more recorded cases but half the number of deaths as they were successful in protecting their elderly. You want me to trust a study with contributions made by the Chinese, The People's Republic of China? A country which has supposedly recorded just 85,826 out of a population of 1,439,323,776! Even the governments biggest fanboy, the BBC admit it's difficult to tell whether regional lockdowns are working I don't need to prove anything as I'm not the person ordering everyone about.[/i At the end of the day it's the UK Governments position to back up it's claims as they are the ones shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Every measure they come up with seems to fail as they follow it with another restrictive measure. I then hear people saying the only reason why the rules don't work is because people aren't following the rules. Well you know what they say in rugby; you can't sack the players but you can sack the coach. Just wish we could sack coaches Whitty, Al and Cummings.'" You appear to be claiming, despite all evidence to contrary, that lockdowns are not necessary and/or are ineffective. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You could start by listing all the countries that didn't use a lockdown and their covid data. Which countries do you feel achieved results with limited intervention. Are you really claiming that cases/ deaths would have been the same in the UK without the lockdown? In Sweden, secondary schools were closed, sport fixtures cancelled and gatherings of more than 50 people banned. Swedes were asked to stay at home if they are over 70 or feeling unwell. Social distancing was requested in public places.people were told to avoid unnecessary international travel and to limit car journeys within the country to two hours. In Switzerland, the measures are currently being ramped up. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2730GA Timing is one of the most important factors in taking action to suppress the spread of the virus. Germany had testing in place very quickly and got an idea of the scope of the virus and reacted accordingly. The UK completely failed to ramp up testing at the start and allowed the spread to get out of control before having to lock down. Clearly, Boris wanted to avoid a lockdown, but was eventually forced into it by the speed of virus spread. South Korea were very quick of the mark and very organised with test/track/trace. The bottom line is, why would any country use lockdown measures and cause huge, long-lasting damage to their economy if it was not necessary, in particular the UK government?

Quote: MatthewTrin "No I do not agree with any form of lockdowns mandated by any government institutions perpetuated by the media on their behalf. I think all individuals are free to live how they see fit. During any health crisis governments are best placed to serve people by providing fact sheets, recommendations and guidance only similar to how the Japanese government dealt with this virus. It should be entirely up to the person whether they should be "allowed" to open their "non essential" business. If you're vulnerable take extra pre cautions, if you're petrified bask yourself in the new normal and stay home at all times. Cue the "selfish" argument or you're going to overwhelm the NHS! My reply is simple if you are concerned about the health service being over run then join a march/petition to ban all people from requesting asylum while you're at it, you could even demand a ban on smoking (78,000 related deaths per year), ban fast food, ban alcohol, ban all contact sports. Why should we prioritise treating the lives of those groups of people who are putting strain on the NHS but not those who might get C19 who've chosen to get on with their lives. Where does the madness end? Recorded deaths - are you saying we should record the C19 deaths differently by increasing the number of days from 28 to 60 days from the last positive test? Do you work for the BBC? The majority of those 5,500 were binned for a good reason as people were going back into hospital at a later date for other medical reasons and were being recorded as C19. If you are referring to Sweden's performance in terms of the total number of deaths it's well documented they performed poorly due to the same mistakes as the UK; not protecting care homes, clearing out hospitals of elderly patients and refusing elderly patients treatment. This is backed up by the age of deaths - 5,271 out of 5,918 were over the age of 70. Compare Sweden to a country like Switzerland - similar population, more recorded cases but half the number of deaths as they were successful in protecting their elderly. You want me to trust a study with contributions made by the Chinese, The People's Republic of China? A country which has supposedly recorded just 85,826 out of a population of 1,439,323,776! Even the governments biggest fanboy, the BBC admit it's difficult to tell whether regional lockdowns are working I don't need to prove anything as I'm not the person ordering everyone about.[/i At the end of the day it's the UK Governments position to back up it's claims as they are the ones shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Every measure they come up with seems to fail as they follow it with another restrictive measure. I then hear people saying the only reason why the rules don't work is because people aren't following the rules. Well you know what they say in rugby; you can't sack the players but you can sack the coach. Just wish we could sack coaches Whitty, Al and Cummings.'" You appear to be claiming, despite all evidence to contrary, that lockdowns are not necessary and/or are ineffective. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You could start by listing all the countries that didn't use a lockdown and their covid data. Which countries do you feel achieved results with limited intervention. Are you really claiming that cases/ deaths would have been the same in the UK without the lockdown? In Sweden, secondary schools were closed, sport fixtures cancelled and gatherings of more than 50 people banned. Swedes were asked to stay at home if they are over 70 or feeling unwell. Social distancing was requested in public places.people were told to avoid unnecessary international travel and to limit car journeys within the country to two hours. In Switzerland, the measures are currently being ramped up. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2730GA Timing is one of the most important factors in taking action to suppress the spread of the virus. Germany had testing in place very quickly and got an idea of the scope of the virus and reacted accordingly. The UK completely failed to ramp up testing at the start and allowed the spread to get out of control before having to lock down. Clearly, Boris wanted to avoid a lockdown, but was eventually forced into it by the speed of virus spread. South Korea were very quick of the mark and very organised with test/track/trace. The bottom line is, why would any country use lockdown measures and cause huge, long-lasting damage to their economy if it was not necessary, in particular the UK government?

I'd happily ban smoking, but more to the point, we as a society agreed to ban the affects on other people of smoking.
We banned smoking in enclosed areas, on public transport, in fire hazard locations etc etc.
So we agreed through our democratic process to leave people to their free will as not all smokers put a strain on the NHS but stop them affecting others.

A bit like the covid restrictions now. You can spread your covid germs to your family if you feel the need but we are trying to stop you spreading them to everyone else...... Because everyone else has a right to freedom of choice too.

There are restrictions on fast food content. Regular checks with penalties

There are rules in contact sports to protect the players and protective equipment too.

Can't see why we should ignore the issue of Covid just because some people want to spread it selfishly. There needs to be rules in place.

I wonder.......... Are you against motorbike helmets or protective goggles for those working with dangerous tools? Is that a repression of civil liberty?

As. someone who worked for Bombardier (called Procor at the time], and saw all the things you mentioned, also the devastation to the engineering industry, mining [we still have to import coal],
I have to agree with what you say. I’m a reasonable person, I’ve experienced at lot in life, just as you have. There are strings being pulled by someone, and the puppet governments are dancing to their tune.

A gent wearing a visor came onto my premises to collect and pay for goods yesterday. After joking someone should come up with wipers for visors (see, I'm not all bad.) he procceeded to pay me bringing out a wad of notes. He then licks his fingers to seperate them and hands them over to me. I have to say I am neither worried nor scared and in many ways that is how I choose to live, without fear.
I'll let you know how I get on.

Rightly or wrongly, I always say to the masked "don't need to wear that (mask) on my account" You would not believe how many whip it off, and look relieved, all bar one gent who was scared what his wife would say' .

Disclaimer:
Now, just for the statisticians I have to say my client base is something like .00000000000000000000000000000000001% of the world.
So no need to get back to me on that.

Lets take the subject of alcohol, which could be banned if they so wish. Isn't it odd that the off licences were allowed to stay open?.
And, unlike smoking, Alcohol related problems effect all society, child abuse, violence in the home and on the street, drunk drivers, pressure on A&E and the rest of the NHS. The list is endless. The problems are therefore, in a nutshell, contagious, just like your covid.

A total of 533,302 people in England have been admitted to hospital as an emergency since 2010 with serious health problems related to their consumption of alcohol. The vast majority were admissions for conditions specifically related to alcohol abuse, such as liver problems.

According to hospital admissions data published by health performance experts Dr Foster in their latest annual Hospital Guide, problems related to alcohol and drugs now cost the NHS £607m a year. The cost of treating those kept in for at least one night owing to long-term alcohol misuse dwarfs the £22m a year the NHS spends on those admitted after binge drinking.

Doctors called for a renewed focus on drinking among the middle-aged and for ministers and the NHS to take tough action to tackle a significant cause of illness and pressure on hospital beds.

PS. I am not anti booze. Just making a point.

Covid v alcohol? Bit of government hypocracy going on here. Hmmm! Could it be a tax and profit motive ????

No, I am not against helmets, I wore them before they became law, I also chose not to wear them when the mood took me.

There are checks on fast food but they are not good enough. See the effects of too much salt and suger in the diet, especially upon childrens health. We don't even ban advertising the crap. That would be better than nothing.

Finally, a "balanced" article from the BBC. Not all doom and gloom and not as bad as they constantly tell us it is in their news bulletins. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712003 ....If you want to know why our ITU's are full, have a specific look at the number of beds available compared to the rest of Europe.

Finally, a "balanced" article from the BBC. Not all doom and gloom and not as bad as they constantly tell us it is in their news bulletins. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712003 ....If you want to know why our ITU's are full, have a specific look at the number of beds available compared to the rest of Europe.

I think that you are confusing the actions taken by "EVERY" government with the capitalist ideals of "some".

Having said that, many of the changes in manufacturing are down to people like you and I, who buy stuff because its cheap, perhaps without enough thought as to why it's cheap.

It's a whole different argument, please dont confuse the two issues.