Where are they getting this "real world data" that shows that AstraZeneca in two doses cuts the chance of death by 94 percent?

Because the "real world" I have been looking at for eighteen long months has not been without some sort of restrictions for a single day! (so curbing transmission)

Or do they have a secret island where the testers are roaming freely and cavorting in nightclubs?

Otherwise, it looks like the vaccines might be a bit crap.

Honey wrote:


Because the "real world" I have been looking at for eighteen long months has not been without some sort of restrictions for a single day! (so curbing transmission)



Really Honey? Where is the evidence for this? Every international comparison shows no link whatsoever between severity & length of restrictions and mortality rates.

Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:


Because the "real world" I have been looking at for eighteen long months has not been without some sort of restrictions for a single day! (so curbing transmission)



Really Honey? Where is the evidence for this? Every international comparison shows no link whatsoever between severity & length of restrictions and mortality rates.

Then why are they planning for more lockdowns?

If restrictions stop spread, there is no "real world data"

And if restrictions don't stop the spread, we wont need them any more, will we?

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:


Then why are they planning for more lockdowns?

If restrictions stop spread, there is no "real world data"

And if restrictions don't stop the spread, we wont need them any more, will we?

They are planning for more lockdowns because they can. It was unthinkable in March 20 because we collectively put a value on our freedom. Lockdowns would have been justified for a lethal virus that does not rely on co-morbidities; but we used it for the wrong one; but they have persisted with the category error mythologising because they put their careers above the truth. Now people expect lockdowns and will blame politicians for future "covid deaths" if they don't use them. So they will use them. They don't know politically how to get out of the trap they have set themselves.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:


Then why are they planning for more lockdowns?

If restrictions stop spread, there is no "real world data"

And if restrictions don't stop the spread, we wont need them any more, will we?

They are planning for more lockdowns because they can. It was unthinkable in March 20 because we collectively put a value on our freedom. Lockdowns would have been justified for a lethal virus that does not rely on co-morbidities; but we used it for the wrong one; but they have persisted with the category error mythologising because they put their careers above the truth. Now people expect lockdowns and will blame politicians for future "covid deaths" if they don't use them. So they will use them. They don't know politically how to get out of the trap they have set themselves.

It reeks of panic, doesn't it? When they can't even lie consistently.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Honey wrote:


Then why are they planning for more lockdowns?

If restrictions stop spread, there is no "real world data"

And if restrictions don't stop the spread, we wont need them any more, will we?

They are planning for more lockdowns because they can. It was unthinkable in March 20 because we collectively put a value on our freedom. Lockdowns would have been justified for a lethal virus that does not rely on co-morbidities; but we used it for the wrong one; but they have persisted with the category error mythologising because they put their careers above the truth. Now people expect lockdowns and will blame politicians for future "covid deaths" if they don't use them. So they will use them. They don't know politically how to get out of the trap they have set themselves.

Boris can announce a lockdown tomorrow if he wanted to.

Lockdowns are practise for the globalist to see how we react when they push their agendas. We probably have a climate change lockdown no going out to places for a Summer. Stay at home, stay safe safe the environment.

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:


It reeks of panic, doesn't it? When they can't even lie consistently.

Yes I think it does. There have been so many inconsistent absurdities uttured - they only ever make sense when you think about them politically rather than "scientifically". Take any of the nonsense over the past 18 months and put yourself in the shoes of someone terrified of the press and wanting to be re-elected, and I promise you it all begins to make sense. From this, I have concluded the whole farrago has been primarily political rather than about public health/"the science".

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Honey wrote:


Lockdowns are practise for the globalist to see how we react when they push their agendas. We probably have a climate change lockdown no going out to places for a Summer. Stay at home, stay safe safe the environment.

I certainly think it has been remarkably foolish to hand our liberty over to the State in the way the majority has. While I am less sure than you on the reason for and what form the future deployment of their new powers will take; use them they will.