Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

Author
Discussion

paulguitar

19,239 posts

100 months

Yesterday (16:22)
quotequote all
redcard

bodhi

8,384 posts

216 months

Yesterday (16:23)
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
redcard
hehe

B'stard Child

26,353 posts

233 months

Yesterday (16:27)
quotequote all
bodhi said:
paulguitar said:
bodhi said:
And to your pints preceding that - you're just wrong. HTH.
No need to imply alcohol was involved.
Well he was drinking Carling wink
Carling has alcohol in it?

captain_cynic

9,305 posts

82 months

Yesterday (16:31)
quotequote all
bodhi said:
captain_cynic said:
LoL,

You know it's BS now they've given it that name.
Considering the alternative proposal was called the "John Snow Memorandum" I'm not sure that's the slam dunk you think it is.

But then from my scientific background we tend to look at the content of proposals rather than just the name.
You miss the point as always.

When you have to give something a grandiose name in order to obscure what it's really about, it's BS. You're really just trying to hide what it's about to sucker in the gullible.

In the case of the "grand declaration" or whatever you want to call it, it's complete and utter BS, it's not even remotely believable.

Jasandjules

68,607 posts

216 months

Yesterday (16:33)
quotequote all
Zumbruk said:
More topics CT-ers don't understand; Tragedy of the commons, tipping points.
Was that the tipping point over 15 years ago that would leave the Maldives underwater by 2020 as per Mr Brown?

LF5335

961 posts

30 months

Yesterday (16:38)
quotequote all
bodhi said:
When you say "The Great Declaration bunch" I assume you mean the Great Barrington Declaration, which was put together by 3 highly qualified and experienced scientists based on classical epidemiological principles and ultimately put into practice by most governments worldwide - including China.

You mean that bunch?

Anyway I was just wondering what our Captains of Logic thought of the less obvious conspiracy theories often peddled on social media? I'm talking about the likes of:

- Boris wasn't really ill with COVID when he was admitted to hospital, recently repeated by Alastair Campbell
- The Tories want to sell the NHS off to their mates and bring in a US System, repeated by most of Twitter.
- The entire axis of evil in the UK is based in Tufton Street London, as often repeated by Monbiot.
- Just about anything ever printed in the Byline Times.

Personally to me they sound just as nutty and lacking evidence as the earth being flat and birds being real, however they seem remarkably absent from this thread? Is it a status thing?
The GBD is garbage. The fact they had to meet in a place called Great Barrington so they could name it that and con people that it was some sort of “Great Declaration” as a result speaks volumes about how far along the bks scale it is.

In answer to the rest in order:

Wibble

Probably a degree of truth, to try to limit costs / reduce inefficiencies / reduce demand, but all are politically risky. Amy attempt to kill the NHS would kill the Tories as a party forever. However, as you’ve gone to the extreme, then wibble.

Bunch of nutters, all in one building for a full on circle jerk. As they have limited influence then it’s good to keep them all together and maybe rebrand the building as a Loony Bin. Hardly a maxis of evil though as their just nutters shouting at clouds, therefore wibble

Never heard of it.


jshell

10,704 posts

192 months

Yesterday (16:44)
quotequote all
LF5335 said:
bodhi said:
When you say "The Great Declaration bunch" I assume you mean the Great Barrington Declaration, which was put together by 3 highly qualified and experienced scientists based on classical epidemiological principles and ultimately put into practice by most governments worldwide - including China.

You mean that bunch?

Anyway I was just wondering what our Captains of Logic thought of the less obvious conspiracy theories often peddled on social media? I'm talking about the likes of:

- Boris wasn't really ill with COVID when he was admitted to hospital, recently repeated by Alastair Campbell
- The Tories want to sell the NHS off to their mates and bring in a US System, repeated by most of Twitter.
- The entire axis of evil in the UK is based in Tufton Street London, as often repeated by Monbiot.
- Just about anything ever printed in the Byline Times.

Personally to me they sound just as nutty and lacking evidence as the earth being flat and birds being real, however they seem remarkably absent from this thread? Is it a status thing?
The GBD is garbage.
I've never actually read the GBD, until now. Have you? It appears to be a lot of common sense and pointed out what has actually come to pass, so here's an extract:

"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. "

This also seems pretty fair:

"Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. "

This also seems to follow the science of virology:

"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."

Can you please point out the 'garbage'?

bodhi

8,384 posts

216 months

Yesterday (16:50)
quotequote all
captain_cynic said:
You miss the point as always.

When you have to give something a grandiose name in order to obscure what it's really about, it's BS. You're really just trying to hide what it's about to sucker in the gullible.

In the case of the "grand declaration" or whatever you want to call it, it's complete and utter BS, it's not even remotely believable.
Sorry I wasn't aware you actually had a point past "it's got a silly name hurdur".

I've got to admit whilst I'm not massively a fan of CTs, from my limited interactions with those who do like them they do at least seem to be able to construct an argument, even if the facts they're based on are a little dodgy. Some on this thread seem incredibly lacking in that respect.

Mind you they also seem to be the ones who think birds are real, so there's no saving them I guess.

LF5335

961 posts

30 months

Yesterday (17:12)
quotequote all
jshell said:
I've never actually read the GBD, until now. Have you? It appears to be a lot of common sense and pointed out what has actually come to pass, so here's an extract:

"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. "

This also seems pretty fair:

"Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. "

This also seems to follow the science of virology:

"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."

Can you please point out the 'garbage'?
All of it. It’s that simple. The prefacing that you’ve quoted is simply blurb to try to build credibility. It’s simply suggesting that we lock up the old and infirm, let everyone else do what they want and hope herd immunity kicks in. There is absolutely no scenario planning around the risks that would have driven when it was written.

Please don’t quote out of context snippets and pretend that it’s somehow impressive. It’s not. It has zero substance, the random example given around nursing home staff has no bearing on what could be achieved globally or nationally.

I’m not dissecting it line by line.

jshell

10,704 posts

192 months

Yesterday (17:15)
quotequote all
LF5335 said:
jshell said:
I've never actually read the GBD, until now. Have you? It appears to be a lot of common sense and pointed out what has actually come to pass, so here's an extract:

"Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. "

This also seems pretty fair:

"Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. "

This also seems to follow the science of virology:

"Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."

Can you please point out the 'garbage'?
All of it. It’s that simple. The prefacing that you’ve quoted is simply blurb to try to build credibility. It’s simply suggesting that we lock up the old and infirm, let everyone else do what they want and hope herd immunity kicks in. There is absolutely no scenario planning around the risks that would have driven when it was written.

Please don’t quote out of context snippets and pretend that it’s somehow impressive. It’s not. It has zero substance, the random example given around nursing home staff has no bearing on what could be achieved globally or nationally.

I’m not dissecting it line by line.
There is next to nothing apart from what I quoted. You still haven't read it. Each part of that is accurate and valid. You just want to believe what you want to believe and negate any other view.

Maybe you're more of a CT!

This is the full declaration:

"The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."

LF5335

961 posts

30 months

Yesterday (17:27)
quotequote all
jshell said:
There is next to nothing apart from what I quoted. You still haven't read it. Each part of that is accurate and valid. You just want to believe what you want to believe and negate any other view.

Maybe you're more of a CT!

This is the full declaration:

"The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."
Yes, I have read it. It’s pretty obvious I’d read it as I gave a few examples of where their simplistic comments fall down.

Tell you what let’s see how you get on quantifying the “irreparable damage” bearing in mind that we did indeed keep the lockdowns in large parts of the globe until a vaccine was available. The damage has to be irreparable, not just a short term inconvenience obviously.

How did they define “acquired immunity”? Did they have a biter to unknown test for this, especially in the face of the volume and speed of mutations.

minimising staff rotation. How do they do that whilst not falling foul of employment laws? Especially in the face of a pandemic where staff were just as susceptible to catching it, albeit without the tragic effects?

Here immunity. How’s that going? Are we all immune now after 3 years and a load of vaccines becoming available?

Pretty obvious, that it’s a load of toss.

Al Gorithum

2,853 posts

195 months

Yesterday (17:34)
quotequote all
LF5335 said:
jshell said:
There is next to nothing apart from what I quoted. You still haven't read it. Each part of that is accurate and valid. You just want to believe what you want to believe and negate any other view.

Maybe you're more of a CT!

This is the full declaration:

"The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity."
Yes, I have read it. It’s pretty obvious I’d read it as I gave a few examples of where their simplistic comments fall down.

Tell you what let’s see how you get on quantifying the “irreparable damage” bearing in mind that we did indeed keep the lockdowns in large parts of the globe until a vaccine was available. The damage has to be irreparable, not just a short term inconvenience obviously.

How did they define “acquired immunity”? Did they have a biter to unknown test for this, especially in the face of the volume and speed of mutations.

minimising staff rotation. How do they do that whilst not falling foul of employment laws? Especially in the face of a pandemic where staff were just as susceptible to catching it, albeit without the tragic effects?

Here immunity. How’s that going? Are we all immune now after 3 years and a load of vaccines becoming available?

Pretty obvious, that it’s a load of toss.
Props to you for spending time on these idiots. I refuse to do it nowadays.

A lion cares not what a sheep thinks.

bodhi

8,384 posts

216 months

Yesterday (17:38)
quotequote all
Al Gorithum said:
Props to you for spending time on these idiots. I refuse to do it nowadays.

A lion cares not what a sheep thinks.
Just a shame what he posted was pretty much 100% sheep st.

Zumbruk

7,574 posts

247 months

Yesterday (17:39)
quotequote all
bodhi said:
Zumbruk said:
The GBD was, and is, arsewipe. And to each of your points, no they aren't, no it wasn't and no it wasn't.

And as for using *China* as an exemplar... words fail me.
Sounds more like your reading has failed you tbh.

https://unherd.com/thepost/china-abandons-one-size...

And to your pints preceding that - you're just wrong. HTH.
Helps? Being patronised by an idiot? Seems unlikely.

Zumbruk

7,574 posts

247 months

Yesterday (17:42)
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
Zumbruk said:
More topics CT-ers don't understand; Tragedy of the commons, tipping points.
Was that the tipping point over 15 years ago that would leave the Maldives underwater by 2020 as per Mr Brown?
QED. Thanks, but I didn't need any examples of your lack of understanding.

More topics CT-ers don't understand; Extrapolating from the specific to the general. Politicians are not scientists.

The answer to the question appears to be a resounding "Yes!"

jshell

10,704 posts

192 months

Yesterday (17:50)
quotequote all
LF5335 said:
Yes, I have read it. It’s pretty obvious I’d read it as I gave a few examples of where their simplistic comments fall down.

Tell you what let’s see how you get on quantifying the “irreparable damage” bearing in mind that we did indeed keep the lockdowns in large parts of the globe until a vaccine was available. The damage has to be irreparable, not just a short term inconvenience obviously.

How did they define “acquired immunity”? Did they have a biter to unknown test for this, especially in the face of the volume and speed of mutations.

minimising staff rotation. How do they do that whilst not falling foul of employment laws? Especially in the face of a pandemic where staff were just as susceptible to catching it, albeit without the tragic effects?

Here immunity. How’s that going? Are we all immune now after 3 years and a load of vaccines becoming available?

Pretty obvious, that it’s a load of toss.
Irreparable damage - we now have higher excess deaths than during Covid, an economy on it's ass, possibly a forthcoming economic crash and people who've been unable to get much needed treatments.. That is going to be long lasting.

Aquired immunity is what we would have had if we hadn't tried to vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic. It's also obvious now that mutations are caused by the provably leaky vaccines. Immunology class 1.

Staff who worked through the first wave were proven to have antibodies from repeat exposure, which is how herd immunity would have happened!!

Herd immunity cannot be achieved now as people have had their immune systems trained by a vaccine designed for the early variants not the later ones. Shown by even the UK Govts own numbers and predicted early on by virologists.

The fact that you don't know any of this stuff just shows you are here to shout "CT" from the rooftops.

I'll leave you to your inane ramblings and utter lack of knowledge and logic.

jshell

10,704 posts

192 months

Yesterday (17:51)
quotequote all
Al Gorithum said:
Props to you for spending time on these idiots. I refuse to do it nowadays.

A lion cares not what a sheep thinks.
Do you think you're a lion? Jesus Christ, you're modest!!! roflroflbiglaugh

Grumps.

2,390 posts

23 months

Yesterday (17:52)
quotequote all
The economy was near enough on its ass before covid.

Al Gorithum

2,853 posts

195 months

Yesterday (17:57)
quotequote all
jshell said:
Al Gorithum said:
Props to you for spending time on these idiots. I refuse to do it nowadays.

A lion cares not what a sheep thinks.
Do you think you're a lion? Jesus Christ, you're modest!!! roflroflbiglaugh
Q: Did I say that?
A: No.

You're welcome.

LF5335

961 posts

30 months

Yesterday (18:05)
quotequote all
jshell said:
Irreparable damage - we now have higher excess deaths than during Covid, an economy on it's ass, possibly a forthcoming economic crash and people who've been unable to get much needed treatments.. That is going to be long lasting.

Aquired immunity is what we would have had if we hadn't tried to vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic. It's also obvious now that mutations are caused by the provably leaky vaccines. Immunology class 1.

Staff who worked through the first wave were proven to have antibodies from repeat exposure, which is how herd immunity would have happened!!

Herd immunity cannot be achieved now as people have had their immune systems trained by a vaccine designed for the early variants not the later ones. Shown by even the UK Govts own numbers and predicted early on by virologists.

The fact that you don't know any of this stuff just shows you are here to shout "CT" from the rooftops.

I'll leave you to your inane ramblings and utter lack of knowledge and logic.
rofl this is pure class

Damage. Irreparable was the claim in that pile of poo you seem to love. None of what you’ve mentioned is irreparable, excluding death, but are we really seeing ec]xcess deaths that high. Don’t answer that, I’ll look it up for myself. There are other wild claims you’ve made, none of which are irreparable. Some of it is poor, but there are many, many factors in play with this.

More vaccine wibble. Let me hazard a wild guess, you’re an anti-vax obsessive. Even your bloody declaration says that vaccines will help.

So all we needed was for everyone to be staff in the first wave? What happened when a load of them needed treatment for Covid? Did we just magic a load of health professionals from the magic NHS tree?

You know even less than me, but I can drive a bus through all of your claims, with minimal effort. That should tell you something about how naïve you are.