I think you need to reflect on why you are unable to have a normal discussion with people. Your first ever āinteractionā with me was a broadsided attack.
Variants were originally denied by hardcore C19 lockdowners but became the flavour of the month from Dec-20 once the vaccine came on board.
you cunt
I did not make that assertion. I simply gave you some corrective facts. Unlike some people, I do not comment on something unless I know what I am saying is factually correct at least.
The one thing TFK has taught me, above all else? How childish nearly all right wing people are.
As is perfectly obvious to anyone but the warped, I have perfectly normal discussions ā mainly about hurling ā with many people on here, both in public and in private. The reality is that I detest you ā with eminently good reason. Your ego cannot seem to accept this reality. I guess you are not used to people like me.
Now, politely once more, stop addressing me. I can live, quite happily, without knowing the source of your fascination with me.
If you look back to when the first major variant appeared pre-Christmas 2020 it was @Tierneevin1979 who was poo-pooing it.
But short lived poster @Padraig_O_Gammon was in little doubt that the variant was indeed real and a serious problem. He was sadly proved correct.
But you see there is your problem in a nutshell, as factual means indisputable and there is nothing indisputible about Covid, not in 2020 and not now. Like all of science there are hypotheses that can be tested and maybe eventually lead to a theory, but even then rarely in science do you hear the term factual or true. Literally all theories are eventually overturned as we learn more, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and most likely wrong about even his own field of relatively.
Itās understandable that yourself and the other lads with liberal arts degrees, who probably studied a bit of philosophy, to fall into this trap. You are used to thinking in terms of proofs and truths, but itās not applicable to science.
Itās perfectly acceptable to admit you were wrong in the past, in fact itās the hallmark of a good scientist.
And yet you reply to me repeatedly with abuse and personal details. Your first reply to me *ever *was when you had documented down details on me and decided to attack. You need to have a look in the mirror to check the old ego (with a giant chip to boot) and how you interact with other people. Nothing in my post was abusive .
I really appreciate the effort you put into your responses to me. It is commendable.
He had obviously been reading your posts for a long period without ever signing up here, and having internal monologue, imaginary debates with you. The weirdo was taking mental notes about you (and possibly written ones, with a biro) and then exploded into action on his first actual written post to you. The chip on the shoulder is all of the envious, resentment kind - a very, very sad individual
The jollying up bit? No it didnāt and nor should it
Vulnerable were protected, particularly in the early days and if there is one thing out of the whole pandemic which could b/c said was wrong it was that. People dying alone FFS sake.
But what seems to be suggested is that the vulnerable should shoulder the entire burden of that wicked disease, isolate them, and let the rest of us get on with our lives. That would involve an even tighter restriction on them considering the likelihood of the general population including carers being riddled with it.
I think youāre wrong here mate. Old people often known as bedblockers were fucked out of hospitals into nursing homes without even being tested. Many had covid they had contracted in hospitals and then spread it throughout nursing homes. Hundreds died as a result. The vulnerable (as in older people) were very much an afterthought in this situation.
Mistakes were made but I donāt believe they were an afterthought. Even the original delay in banning visits was because of the social isolation it caused.
Whatever happened to the mad ventilator scramble of 2020? Factories converted, public announcements about overseas procurement, millions spent. All quietly shelved and not a word about how many were savedā¦or killed
millions spent
Thatās the important bit
We knew from elsewhere that the elderly were most vulnerable. A pretty massive mistake to throw people into nursing homes without being tested. A huge number of the early deaths were in nursing homes.
I dont think anyone intentionally killed anyonr, obviously, but the suggestion that the vulnerable were protected from the outset is pretty wrong. They were inadvertently put at huge danger and paid the ultimate price. The nursing homes were also back of the queue for resources and protective gear too. Another mistake i suppose.
So a step was missed ,in not testing them, but the ultimate aim was to protect them .
Not in my opinion.
Iād say they werent the focus of it at all. I think the thinking wentā¦āwe need to get rid of all these old fuckers quick cos weāre gonna need space for real peopleā¦get them into homes asapā.
It was a devastating lickdown.
Theyāre the best kind