We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]


50 comments to Thundering

  • Bulldog Drummond

    He’s not wrong 😡

  • DP

    Dear Mr de Havilland

    Despite the fact that the covid virus has proved to be relatively benign, it has been used by our government to establish how far it can push the public into compliance with a range of demands and restrictions, the latest demand for widespread vaccination with untested vaccines being by far the most pernicious.

    For the most part the answer seems to be ‘as far as they like’ as evidenced by the muted response to the latest lockup extension and avid acceptance of vaccines.

    One question that government probably would like to know the answer to is: how long must the public be locked up for that regime to become ‘normal’. Mr Johnson and his advisors seem to think we haven’t been locked up long enough, hence the endless extensions on ever thinner pretexts.

    The collateral damage to small businesses might be considered a feature rather than a bug, since millions of small businesses make the economy look messy to tidy-minded bureaucrats and are a pain to deal with. Damage to the travel and hospitality industries is also a feature: the livestock won’t be going anywhere and the planet will be saved.

    How to change the minds of millions who seem to accept every abuse the government inflicts upon them?

    Government and sage should be facing Nuremberg 2. Instead it will be lordships, sirhoods, gongs and noble pease prizes all round.


  • Snorri Godhi

    No restrictions left that i can disobey over here, i’m afraid!

  • Stonyground

    The problem is that we are surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who, when faced with the Covid virus, are rendered incapable of rational thought. If you quote irrefutable facts to them they tell you that they are only your opinion, which is obviously wrong. Their opinions about Covid vaccines are based on the belief that it works in the same way as a conventional vaccine. When you explain to them that it works in a different way, that there are risks which, for younger people probably outweigh the benefits of getting it, it has no effect on their thought processes. A guy from our village who was in his early twenties died from pneumonia. According to Mrs. S this one death out of millions in his age bracket proves that it is just as dangerous for young people as it is to people who are almost at death’s door already. She’s not stupid, she just gets all of her information from the BBC.

  • Very few people are numerate, Stonyground, which is why they are very bad at cost/benefit decisions.

  • Peter MacFarlane

    Who was it said quite some time ago that this [Covid nonsense] will not end until enough of us realise it’s not meant to end, and start to stand up to them?

    He was not wrong, either.

  • virgil xenophon

    Peter MacFarlane speak Heap Big Medicine!!!

  • Jim

    “The problem is that we are surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who, when faced with the Covid virus, are rendered incapable of rational thought.”

    My cod-psychology theory explains this by way of a person’s attitude to death. I would suggest that those people who have either experienced a close shave with death, or have already considered their own mortality will be largely unaffected by covid, their personality will remain the same as it was before. A cautious person will still be cautious, a hedonist still out there partying. Whereas someone who has not ever really sat down and come to terms with the idea that they are going to die and have just pushed that inconvenient fact way to the back of their brain will have received a massive psychological jolt from covid – all their brain will be screaming to them is ‘You are going to die!!!!!!’ over and over again, and this will result in a fundamental change in personality. Formerly logical and carefree people will be spraying everything with dettol and driving around in the car wearing a mask, because their mortality has been dragged to the front of their mind, and its all they can now think about.

  • Cesare


  • Paul Marks

    The restrictions did not save lives.

    Lives could have been saved by Early Treatment with a combination of long established medications – but this was systematically SMEARED.

    If Western governments and vast (“pet”) Corporations (such as the banks) do not want the totalitarian society pushed by the World Economic Forum, United Nations and-so-on, why do they go to the conferences, nod agreement, sign such “legally nonbinding” documents as Agenda 21 (agreed as long ago as 1991) and then turn them into local laws and regulations. And why do they even use the slogans of the World Economic Forum and other pro totalitarianism bodies.

    The idea that Klaus Schwab and his chums were motivated by Covid 19 is utterly absurd – they have been pushing Collectivism for 50 years. Covid is just the latest in a long line of justifications for what they want to do anyway.

    Stand by for a switch back to the Global Warming justification – and remember that the international establishment were pushing collectivism long BEFORE this.

  • I note as a side-point that uncoordinated non-compliance is not valueless. For example, in a health club I sometimes visit, the staff in recent weeks still usually have a mask about them, but it is often not covering their mouth and nose but hanging about their neck. If a customer who is wearing a mask walks up to them to interact, they may pull it into place briefly. Given the (very rough, personally observed) statistics of which staff do this more and which staff do it less, I assume the manager plans to deal with any Karens by saying

    “You do realise you are ordering me to fire very disproportionately my coloured staff? Are you really demanding I sack all my coloured employees while retaining some of the white ones?

    I have more data points on restaurants and they’ve been more cautious, but in the Highlands I’ve eaten dinner in one whose table-crammed rooms and unmasked jam-packed clientele suggested a very relaxed attitude towards what counts as one metre, let alone two.

    Mind you, I could tell other stories about Highland versus Lowland attitudes to obeying safety (fascist) regulations that long predate the ChiComCold – and on using the sob story when needed. Actual example of employer – standing blocking exit doorway – to safety inspector:

    “So you’re telling me I must sack that lad in there whose delighted with his first job because … [imbecile technicality inspector was insisting on]. Nope, you can be the one to tell him that. There he is in the other room; go and tell him, then you are finished here.”

    Guess what: the previously obdurate-for-many-minutes inspector suddenly realised that maybe the regulations could be interpreted in a way physically possible for the location to meet without job-killing expense.

  • Jim, you are correct. I am elderly, I have survived much, I am one who would be considered at risk for death from having covid, and I am not afraid of it. I know the percentages, they are very low even for the ones at risk. When I got the vaccine my attitude was, I am doing it for others because they worry about me. I have nothing to worry about, I am 84, long term affects aren’t a problem, something is going to kill me at some time. I’ve seen many friends die, much younger than I am now.
    It is obvious the governments of many countries were using this to change the administration here in the US. And they have achieved that. I tremble for my descendants who will suffer from the coming tyranny.

  • […] A powerful message.  Thundering. […]

  • Roué le Jour

    Lockdown costs about 5 billion quid a week, so there is clearly an upper limit on how long it can be maintained, however some elements could be retained indefinitely.

    One of the strengths of the west has been the cooperation between people and government, something which is far from universal. The western governments have decided to exploit the trust implicit in that cooperation and betray the people. This only works until the people realise they have been betrayed.

    When the autopsy is carried out on western civ, the cause of death will be found to be government. We are literally being governed to death.

  • Exasperated

    Just out of curiosity, is your media openly discussing the controversy over Ivermectin? Are your family and friends aware of the kind of claims, we are hearing in the US, on the origins of covid, the response to covid, the suppression of alternative therapies, and the issues surrounding the mRNA vaccines. The media here decries these claims as conspiracy theories and that may be true, until it isn’t. The last couple of weeks they have been back pedaling on the lab leak hypothesis. False in one, false in all. If the mRNA vaccine pans out as a failed, high risk experiment, will they be able to hide it? What happens if the efficacy of Ivermectin et al. is established and becomes public knowledge.
    If the media/academic/public health complex was wrong, or mostly wrong, about covid’s origins, they threw away their reputations. If they were wrong, or mostly wrong, about alternative therapies, or wrong or mostly wrong about the vaccines, they failed everyone and there needs to be a reckoning.

  • George Atkisson

    Ruth, you’re right on the mark. I’m turning 70 this year. I have looked Death in the face 5 times (so far) in my life. Death blinked first. Death, in and of itself, does not frighten me. It is only the next and unavoidable step in my existence. I am concerned for the emotional well-being of those I will leave behind, so I work to stay healthy and active. I am baffled by the response of so many far younger than myself. It’s as if they see the Reaper peeking around every corner hoping for the opportunity to take them. Bizarre.

  • APL

    I have been using my Facebook page to ( in my small way ) run interference, it’s obviously been of no consequence because daily I see posts of my FB ‘friends’ queueing for their anti COVID-19 vaccine.

    Now that they’ve taken the ‘not vaccine’, is it in bad taste* to continue to advocate for the alternative case for COVID-19 treatment?

    Ruth H: “I tremble for my descendants who will suffer from the coming tyranny.”

    An eminently reasonable and sensible perspective.

    Another meme, I rather like and I think might be developed:-

    “You object to genetically modified foods, but are happy to modify the genetics of your own body?”

    * I realize that such considerations may seem unlikely coming from this quarter.

  • Paul Marks

    Still it is possible, very possible (as I know how POLICY works) that government ministers and Corporate managers get all these documents and go to the World Economic Forum conferences (and all the other conferences – including all the British ones from various “charitable bodies” and “NGOs”) and still really do not understand that the whole point is to exterminate liberty.

    Perhaps if the World Economic Forum and all the other organisations and groups communicated as Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago does, things would be clearer.

    Prime Minister Johnson is invited to a briefing by officials and scientific experts…..

    “KILL! DEATH TO THE WEST!” scream the officials and scientific experts, they then type this ten times (still in capital letters and with exclamation marks) and scream that they will “EXTERMINATE!” Prime Minister Johnson personally. They carry on screaming this (over and over again) all through the meeting.

    It is possible that the Prime Minister would sense that something was wrong – but, sadly, the officials and scientific experts do not communicate as clearly as Mayor Lightfoot.

    I say “possible” that the Prime Minister would sense that something was wrong – it is not certain. For example many people and business enterprises have NOT fled Chicago.

    The left, who control Chicago, could not have made their intentions any clearer – yet many of their intended victims (who have had so much time to leave) are still there.

  • Paul Marks

    On disobeying laws.

    Word of warning – the FBI (and other such) have long made a point of infiltrating anti government (anti permanent government – the bureaucracy) movements, they try and encourage VIOLENCE in order to discredit such movements.

    The FBI and the other security agencies in the United States have a political agenda – the “Justice” Department and so on are totally partisan. They wipe their backsides with the Constitution of the United States – as they hate and despise the very concept of limits on government power (Collectivism, to the FBI and the rest of the “educated” classes, is the source of all good things – and voluntary Civil Society is “reactionary” and must-be-discredited). They do not think twice about inventing (instigating) violence in order to discredit pro liberty movements.

    It would be mistake to think “it could not happen here”.

    Be very careful, very careful indeed, of infiltrators – seeking to discredit anti Big Government movements, by pushing violence and so on.

  • Paul Marks

    POLICY is often not invented by elected by politicians – I have often said this, and it is a statement of how the system works (not a “conspiracy” – just a fact).

    But people such as APL have a point – this point being “politicians, at least at the high level, could say NO”.

    Saying NO to POLICY is indeed theoretically possible (at least at the national level – for local politicians the matter is rather different) – for example Agenda 21 (agreed by so many countries in 1991) really did start off as “legally nonbinding” – national governments could have said NO to turn this into national and local laws.

    It is interesting how many politicians simply do not understand “officialise” the language that official documents are written in, and conferences are conducted in.

    “We have agreed something” is what politicians take from such things – without any clear idea of what the “something” is. National and local officials then take the “something” and turn it into local and national laws and regulations.

    “You agreed to this” politicians are then told – if they later question things later on. And it is true – they did agree, without having a clue what they are agreeing to.

    I first noticed this back in 1986 – when Mrs Thatcher agreed to the EEC-EU “Single Market” thinking it was something to do with free trade, Mrs Thatcher had no idea that she had just agreed that most laws in the United Kingdom would not, de facto, be made in Brussels.

    Mrs Thatcher later complained about this – but most politicians do NOT.

    After all for a politician to admit that they were fooled, or simply did not understand what was going on, would make them look foolish.

    There is also the problem that politicians often half AGREE – with the Collectivist aganda.

    In 1991 the President of the United States was George Herbert Walker Bush and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was John Major.

    Let us say one could go back in time and warn them “tell the ministers NOT to agree to Agenda 21 – it will mean a more active and interventionist government”.

    President George Herbert Walker Bush and Prime Minister Major might well have replied “and what is wrong with that – it is the duty of the government to help people”.

    They did not understand what the governments they led were agreeing to for the future – but it might not have mattered if they had known.

    Prime Minister Johnson may also think that government should “help” people more and more in the future – I do not know (I really do not know much about Prime Minister Alexander Johnson behind the “Boris” persona), but Mr Joseph Biden certainly does.

    Mr Biden is senile – but it would not matter if he was not senile, as Mr Biden has always believed that government should grow, that it should control more and more, for “the good of the people”.

    It is quite possible that if Mr Biden could understand the agenda of the totalitarians (and they are totalitarians) who control the American bureaucracy – he would AGREE with that totalitarian agenda.

    K. Harris certainly agrees with the totalitarian agenda – as her father did before her.

  • Gingerdave

    “You object to genetically modified foods, but are happy to modify the genetics of your own body?”

    How do the vaccines alter the recipients’ genetics?

    As far as I can find out, the enzymes that are required to do so (such as integrase) are not present in the vaccines.

    As I understand it, the mRNA and adenovirus-based vaccines use the cell’s protein production mechanism to produce the spike protein, but this doesn’t have any affect on the recipients’ DNA.

  • JohnK


    As you say, Mrs Thatcher agreed to the Single European Act in the belief it would be some sort of free market measure. She did not understand it, or the nature of the EEC (as it then was), but she did come to understand it in time.

    Mrs Thatcher was no Boris Johnson. She was very hard working and studied her brief, but she still got it wrong. Why? Because of the way the civil service presented it perhaps? We can guess the spin those Europhiles will have put on it. Maybe she was too trusting of an “impartial” civil service. Eventually, too late, she saw the error of her ways.

    I expect much less of Boris Johnson, who is a chancer, a liar, a bluffer and a bullshitter.

    As to alternative remedies, which Exasperated asks about above, in the British controlled media I have only ever seen reference to HCQ in the context that the Orange Man Bad was in favour of it, and it was therefore wrong, on a par with “drinking bleach”. If it were not for internet forums such as this, I would never have heard of Ivermectin at all. I don’t think it has ever been mentioned in the controlled media.

    The fact is that Covid 19 is a coronavirus. President Trump did not pull HCQ out of his hat. It is an established treatment for coronaviruses. Even the great Dr Fauci was in favour of its use when Mr Obama was president. He only seemed to change his opinion when Mr Trump was elected. I was previously unaware that the efficacy of such drugs depended on the American presidential election cycle, but obviously Dr Fauci knows better.

  • Flubber

    4chan have a delightful name for these law enforcement agent provocateur..

    Glown*ggers, or Glowies for short.

  • Flubber

    4chan have a delightful name for these law enforcement agent provocateurs..

    Glown*ggers, or Glowies for short.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    @DP: “widespread vaccination with untested vaccines”.

    Were they “untested”?

  • Gingerdave

    @DP: “widespread vaccination with untested vaccines”.

    Were they “untested”?

    I’d say they were tested.

    There were large-scale clinical trials done with about 10,000 people given the vaccine for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna.

    All had good safety and efficacy results.

  • Flubber

    Thats horseshit GP.

    For one no studies were undertaken with regards to interactions with pregnancy.

  • Flubber

    Then there are the kids developing myocarditis in Israel at 25 times the normal rate


  • Gingerdave

    Myocarditis has a background rate of 22 in 100,000.

    Israel is reporting between 5 and 25 times the background rate, clustered in young men. 110 cases in 5,000,000 vaccinated people.

    What your link doesn’t mention is that myocarditis is usually mild, can be easily treated with anti-inflammatory drugs, and only 2 fatalities have been reported.

    Not so scary, is it?

  • Not so scary, is it?

    Says someone who thinks a disease that kills people in their 80s is scary for people not in their 80s 🤣

  • Dave Ward

    @ Exasperated & JohnK: You both raise the subject of UK media and “alternative remedies” – this in the Daily Mail today:

    Can a drug in nit shampoo help treat Covid?

    Dr Hill said “I hope Ivermectin works but we need to prove it to a regulatory standard so it can be approved”

    Since none of the current “Vaccines” have full approval, (and won’t even complete their Phase 3 (of 5) testing until next year), I wonder why he should be so concerned?

  • JohnK


    Is it not amazing that 18 months into this “pandemic”, doctors are only very reluctantly looking at long established drugs which are known to be a treatment for coronaviruses?

    When Mr Obama was president, HCQ was a valid treatment for coronaviruses, but somehow this changed when Mr Trump became president. Who knew viruses had such political influence?

  • Exasperated

    I don’t fault the virologists/epidemiologists for being skeptical about the efficacy of Ivermectin last year. In April 2020, it became widely known that Ivermectin had in vitro efficacy. But, in vitro evidence isn’t worth spit; it’s just a pointer to further exploration. I don’t blame the medical establishment for not foreseeing the possibility of a treatment, based on in vitro tests.
    At the time, vaccines plus a few barely effective antivirals were the historical gold standard against pathogenic viruses. Around February 2020,I recall physician, Dr Marc Seigel of Fox News, standing outside a specialized hospital, in Oklahoma, where some of the cruise ship passengers were treated, fervently hoping that Remdisivir would pan out.
    Ivermectin came out of the blue; I don’t see how anyone could have anticipated it. That said, starting last August the evidence of successful treatment of patients started to emerge and was building up until, in December 2020, there were calls for Ivermectin’s inclusion in treatment protocols. This is where the medical establishment dropped the ball in the US. Though, to be fair, the NIH doesn’t prohibit its use and many doctors are willing to prescribe it. Hospitals are the obstacle and the media, particularly the social media giants, who quashed the Ivermectin story.
    This video is from Dec 2020, yes 6 months ago.

  • Gingerdave

    When Mr Obama was president, HCQ was a valid treatment for coronaviruses,

    Source? I’ve not heard that HCQ was used for any coronavirus before early 2020 and covid-19.

    Re: in vitro data.

    There are many problems with Ivermectin – such as the pharmacokinetics simply don’t make sense. From that paper:

    First, the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin in humans is well described, and even with the highest reported dose of approximately 1700μg/kg (i.e., 8.5 times the FDA-approved dose of 200μg/kg), the maximum plasma concentration was only 0.28μM.

    Second, 93% of ivermectin is bound to plasma proteins that limit its cellular uptake by endothelial cells. Considering both the total plasma concentration and protein binding, the free plasma concentration of ivermectin would be 250 times lower than the concentration required to reduce viral replication of SARS-CoV-2in vitro (Figure 1).

    Third, whilst there is no data on the tissue penetration of ivermectin in human lungs, the total concentration of ivermectin in calves injected with 200μg/kg reached only 100 ng/g (approx.0.1μM) in lung tissue, which suggests that its accumulation would not be sufficient to achieve the antiviral effect with conventional doses. Although high doses of ivermectin in adults or children are well tolerated, the clinical effects of ivermectin at a concentration of 5μM range are unknown and may be associated with toxicity. Consequently, ivermectin has in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, but this effect is unlikely to be observed in vivo using current dosing.

    Dexamethasone works, is cheap, off-patent and is in widespread use. If IVM is being suppressed, why is dexamethasone not?

    Given that it’s easy to find enough patients in the middle of a pandemic, why have all these IVM supporters not recruited 20,000 people and run a proper double-blind RCT?

  • First there was Covid-19. Now they’re discovering all kinds of varieties which can tentatively be called Covid-21. Next year, as always, it’ll be Catch-22.

  • JohnK

    Dr Fauci was happy with HCQ being used on coronaviruses when Mr Obama was president, but not when Mr Trump became president, just as he was against masks before he was for them. I am sure he has his reasons.

  • I don’t actually give a fuck about which treatments do or don’t work as that’s all a distraction from the central issue of control obsessed statist engaged in the largest worldwide power grab since World War 2. The rest is just piddling detail.

  • JohnK


    I disagree. If Covid 19 killed 50% of the population, I think we would put up with lockdowns. However, Covid 19 kills about 0.2% of the population. If it could be shown that of that 0.2%, about 80% could have been saved using simple, well established treatments for coronavirus infection, then the case for lockdowns falls away.

    In that context, it is instructive that senior health officials such as Dr Fauci seem to have decided that treatments such as HCQ, which worked under the Obama administration, no longer worked when Mr Trump was in office. I wonder why that would be?

  • John, as it does not kill 50% but rather 0.2% or thereabouts, that is *precisely* why I do not give a flying fuck about the efficacy of assorted treatments.

  • DP

    @ Johnathan Pearce June 21, 2021 at 7:05 pm

    @DP: “widespread vaccination with untested vaccines”.

    Were they “untested”?

    @ Gingerdave June 21, 2021 at 9:01 pm

    @DP: “widespread vaccination with untested vaccines”.

    Were they “untested”?

    I’d say they were tested.

    There were large-scale clinical trials done with about 10,000 people given the vaccine for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna.

    All had good safety and efficacy results.

    As I understand the process, trials are multi-stage, with Phase 3 studying long-term effects. The mass vaccination programme is the Phase 3 trial. We are left with the hope that the long-term effects are not worse than the disease.

    The evidence, from the Diamond Princess onwards suggests that people under 45 and almost everyone under 65 have little to fear from covid, especially if they take simple precautions during covid season.

    Vaccinating anyone under 65 and those who have had covid could be a monumental disaster which would probably be impossible to undo.

    Some of these graphs might be of interest:



  • JohnK


    It is clear why a career in politics is not for you.

    As it stands, the official covid death tally is around 125,000. If the use of well established treatments for coronaviruses could have reduced this number by 80%, to around 25,000, covid would have been no worse than a bad flu season, and we could have avoided lockdowns, furloughs and £400 billion of debt.

    The fact that senior public health officials such as Dr Fauci decided that the usual coronavirus treatments should not be used on covid 19 needs questioning, does it not? I am not saying they wanted a massive crisis which has crippled the west, I am only saying that is what it looks like.

  • Gingerdave


    Clinical trials are indeed multi-stage.

    Phase 0 is the first, phase 3 was the large-scale trials that were reported and I posted the links above for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna. Phase 4 (so the 5th of 5 phases given the first is 0, not the third as was claimed above) is ongoing surveillance and monitoring, which is currently in place for all of the vaccines. Mass vaccination is not phase 3.

    It’s commonly believed that vaccine trials last 10 years to detect long-term side effects. This is not true – most of those 10 years is taken up by insufficient funding, delays and bureaucracy. The last 16 months, Covid research has been the priority, so the delays have vanished (because everyone works on this first) and the funding has been generous.

    Stage 3 trials run until enough people in the vaccine and control groups have caught the disease for the results to be statistically significant. At this point, the participants are unblinded and the numbers are checked. In many trials this can take a long time for enough people to catch the disease – in the middle of a pandemic when many people are catching it, a trial will reach this point very quickly.

    Side effects usually show up within 2 months of the vaccination. Antibody-dependent enhancement has been raised here as a potential side effect, but the covid vaccines were specifically designed to avoid that. Also, ADE leads to more severe disease when you’re exposed after vaccination, and this is exactly the opposite of what we’ve seen so far. Yes, it took years for ADE to show up in Dengue vaccines, but this is because of the number of people vaccinated and the relative rarity of Dengue. If ADE was a problem with a covid vaccine, it would have shown up by now because of the many millions of vaccinated people, enough would have worse covid due to ADE for the monitoring system to have noticed.

    There doesn’t appear to be a covid season – the UK case rate is climbing right now, in the middle of summer. Almost entirely within the unvaccinated population. Bear in mind that under-45s can still catch covid and pass it on to old people.

    Those graphs are useful, showing spikes in deaths in line with the worst times of the pandemic. Yes, they have mostly been among the old, and are worse in the oldest. However, even if the infection fatality rate is low in the young, a small percentage of a country’s population is still a lot of people.
    Bear in mind that under-45s can still catch covid and pass it on to old people.
    I’m 44, the death rate goes up for me next year according to your graphs

    We are left with the hope that the long-term effects are not worse than the disease.

    What side effects do you expect?
    How long would you run the trials for? The first vaccines were given in March 2020, I think.
    How many people?

    Given that the hype about side effects is largely driven by the anti-vax lobby who have been wrong about vaccines for 20 years, I’ll take the minor risk of side effects over the greater risk of covid.

    Or I could worry about the vaccine turning me into a magnet.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    The only possible argument against the Pfizer mRNA type vaccines, as I understand, is that we do not know the long term effects. But hey, historically many vaccines before the advent of stricter regulations were also wheeled out before they were deemed truly ready, so that’s kinda par for the course.

    I’ve taken the Pfizer one already, and am fervently hoping things can get back to normal in Singapore. Sure, there’ll still be cases, but they’re mostly not serious, so no need for such hoohah.

    Here in Sg though, the general consensus is that most of you independent thinkers and anti-lockdown skeptics are crazy. People here tend to be a lot more obedient and trusting of the authorities. The general consensus amongst the medical practitioners is also that HCQ works as a preventive measure, while ivermectin doesn’t work. My wife is a pharmacist, so she takes every opportunity to disparage the stuff you guys come up with.

    Our local media is ranked amongst the lowest in the world tho… but I think this sort of reporting can be trusted. The issue is, can the experts be trusted?

  • Bulldog Drummond

    I’ll take the minor risk of side effects over the greater risk of covid.


    Unless you’re geriatric, diabetic or morbidly obese, the risks from Covid are trivial. But you already know that, you’re just so invested in the cult of statism that you can’t stand the idea other people see that clearly.

  • Gingerdave

    Why do you believe the incorrect statements commonly discussed here?

    As I understand the process, trials are multi-stage, with Phase 3 studying long-term effects. The mass vaccination programme is the Phase 3 trial.

    Incorrect, as I described above.

    “You object to genetically modified foods, but are happy to modify the genetics of your own body?”

    Incorrect, none of the vaccines are capable of this.

    Certainly, the risks go up with age. No argument there.
    For myself, I was happy to take the vaccine as I’m about to reach the age where the risk increases.
    For the general population, I think they should be vaccinated because the risks of covid (including long covid, affecting 20% of infected 18-34 year olds) are greater than the risk of side effects.

    Vaccination reduces the risk of transmission.
    Comparing household contacts of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, the number of contacts who contracted covid-19 was halved in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated group.
    So there’s another reason to get vaccinated.

    I’ve linked 2 research papers here, as I often do. Could you point out where they are wrong?

  • For myself, I was happy to take the vaccine as I’m about to reach the age where the risk increases

    I am 63 and have a 1 in 4,405 chance of dying from Covid this year, making me by far the most at-risk of anyone in my immediate circle. Whoopie do. I assume you must be morbidly obese, diabetic or geriatric to actually be fearful.

    Comparing household contacts of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, the number of contacts who contracted covid-19 was halved in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated group.

    Could not care less. A year on from getting this trivial disease, I am still anti-body positive. And you are talking about figures like they actually matter, rather than the frenzy of expansion of state power, the lightning fast final transition from a rights-based society to a permission-based society. You are just producing a fog of irrelevant bullshit, whereas the man speaking in the original post is actually discussing the real issue.

  • Bell Curve

    Correct. Anyone who keeps changing the subject to make this all about protecting everyone from a disease is full of shit.

    School age children more likely to be hit by lightning than die of coronavirus

  • Carnivorous Bookworm

    I think they should be vaccinated because the risks of covid (including long covid, affecting 20% of infected 18-34 year olds) are greater than the risk of side effects.

    You’re like a fountain of misinformation.

    Read “Does long Covid really exist?” written by someone who was once a strong proponent of the official narrative.

  • bobby b

    Long Covid is the fibromyalgia of the 2020’s.

    Same symptoms. Even the “brain fog”, except they called it “fibro-fog.”

    Same cause. “Unknown mechanism.”

    Fibromyalgia was rather universally derided until a significant proportion of chiropractors began making serious fees from diagnosing and treating it. Then it became “real.”

  • Gingerdave

    Thank you Bookworm, that’s an interesting paper. Not published or peer-reviewed yet though.

    If that percentage turns out to be correct, I shall adjust my opinion accordingly.

    bobby b

    I guess my point is that this space has been full of bald statements about how the state ought not be shutting down social interaction in the face of this virus, without much recognition that we don’t even know how dangerous the virus is. (Or rather, everyone knows, and everyone’s answer is different.)

    I don’t need paper kites to be regulated. If they crash on me, I laugh. Not so much with flying cars crashing on my head. But, there is obviously some point in between kites and flying cars where the danger turns high enough so that we agree to regulate. (Small flying toasters?)

    The discussion about the virus always seems to lack that component. If you believe that the virus is a killer (as many seem to do), then the state exercised proper power. If you think it’s a very limited danger, then the state overreached. But you cannot answer one question without first answering the other.

    At what point would the state’s intervention be proper? As a percentage Infection (or Case) Fatality Rate, number dead or seriously affected, or as a percentage of the population.

    This could even be broken down by different actions – when would lockdown/vaccination be proper?

    Also considering that in a pandemic situation you can’t wait until the death rate hits your acceptable X% or it will be much higher by the time the action takes effect.