CORONAVIRUS PANIC WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

[CoccoBill]

Sweden is doubling down. In april their chief epidemiologist Tegnell said they have around 15-20% immunity rates in Stockholm already, and reaching herd immunity in june. This week they got results and around 7.3% of Stockholm's population have antibodies. Tegnell's response, "a little lower than we expected but not by more than a few per cent". Currently they have more cases and deaths than the rest of the Nordic countries combined.

	cases	deaths	%cases	%deaths
SE	32172	3871	53.5	78.8
DK	11380	561	18.9	11.4
NO	8309	235	13.8	4.8
FI	6493	233	10.8	4.8
IS	1803	10	3	0.2
Total	60157	4910

The US might be winning, but Sweden is still in the running.

[Poopadoop]

What's the point about speculating whether X would do a better job than Johnson? We can never know that. All we can say it's hard to imagine anyone doing much worse of a job really.

We're about to pass ITA into fifth worldwide in deaths/capita (third if you exclude city-states). So either you have to accept the gov't deserves some blame or you have to adopt some conspiratorial thinking to blame it on something else.

The fact that they keep trying to blame it on scientists without actually publishing what the SAGE scientists are/were telling them is a bit suspicious to say the least.

[OngBonga]

If Cummings did indeed drive his family 260 miles knowing he was ill with covid, then yes he certainly should resign, and probably will be forced to.

[OngBonga]

Of course the taxi fare is offset by the amount you spend on fuel driving yourself. The real cost of a taxi is going to be well under £200, plus the bonus of not having to drive for the entire fucking day while ill.

This excuse isn't cutting it.

[Poopadoop]

This excuse isn't cutting it.

No. 10 is backing him up, said the trip was "essential."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52782913

Apparently they went while his wife was sick but he was still fine, but he was assuming he would get it and no-one would be able to look after their kid.

Obvious problem is the rules don't allow you to make trips based on what you're worried might happen.

Also, to hear his wife tell it they never both had it bad (i.e., bed-ridden) at the same time.

[Poopadoop]

So this douchebag drove his sick wife and kid 260 miles to stay with his elderly parents while he and his wife had CV, in defiance of the lockdown orders.

A couple questions apart from the obvious 'wut, the rules don't apply to him?' one: He drove hours while deathly ill with CV? He thought the best way to protect his family was to take them to stay with his elderly parents?

Obviously he should resign and just as obviously he won't. But, the bigger problem is the effect this will have on the public who will feel like they shouldn't have to follow the rules members of the gov't itself won't follow.

[OngBonga]

The point is that it explains my apathy towards this kind stuff. And it's very easy to do a worse job. Imagine if I were in charge. Spliffs and tea all round, that'll cure us all.

I'm not really interested in this blame game. If I was, I'd start with China. But, unless they have acted deliberately, I'm not really that bothered about them either. All I expect is they learn from their mistakes. Same with our govt, and this would be true in either case. If Labour won the election, I'd cut them some slack too, because this is unprecedented and I'd expect mistakes to be made.

I'm in no doubt that had we done this instead of that, less lives would have been lost. It goes without saying that we need to understand if the mistakes we have made should have been avoided, and if so, who is accountable and to what degree. And, more importantly, what measures need to be taken to ensure the same mistakes are not made in the future. The forthcoming inquiry is not just about accountability, it's also about learning to be better prepared in the future.

On a side note - it's interesting you point out city-states have a higher death rate per capita. Why is that do you suppose? Fun fact - the UK is the 14th most densely populated country in the world with a population greater than 10 million. Italy is 21st. We should expect to be more severely hit than Italy.

[Poopadoop]

On a side note - it's interesting you point out city-states have a higher death rate per capita. Why is that do you suppose? Fun fact - the UK is the 14th most densely populated country in the world with a population greater than 10 million. Italy is 21st. We should expect to be more severely hit than Italy.

Absolutely, density makes a big difference, but it's not everything. The UK had 2 weeks' more warning than ITA, and a weeks' more than a bunch of other countries like SPA, SWZ, FRA , and so had we had our act together, could have done a much better job of preparing.

Instead, we've had a late and relatively soft lockdown, and now have loosened it with no TTI in place.

In another week we can expect to see deaths start to go up again. What's the plan going to be then I wonder?

[OngBonga]

Absolutely, density makes a big difference, but it's not everything. The UK had 2 weeks' more warning than ITA, and a weeks' more than a bunch of other countries like SPA, SWZ, FRA , and so had we had our act together, could have done a much better job of preparing.

Instead, we've had a late and relatively soft lockdown, and now have loosened it with no TTI in place.

In another week we can expect to see deaths start to go up again. What's the plan going to be then I wonder?

Our lockdown is relatively soft, but is that the fault of government, or the people? I've made two lockdown journeys to buy weed. That's me breaking the law, not just in buying drugs, but making what the government would deem to be a non-essential journey. So If I catch covid while I'm out and about, is that the govt's fault? Or mine?

The lockdown is as soft as the people treat it. As for it being late, I can understand a controlled method. Maybe it was too long, but in India's case it was four hours notice, and people are STILL walking home from the cities to their villages because they didn't have the time to prepare. There's clearly an optimal way to impose a lockdown... India was too fast, maybe we were too slow, I'm glad it's not me that has to decide how to go about such a task.

And the longer we're in lockdown, the more serious the problems associated with it are. We've talked about it already, but there's a balance between health and economics. If we become a third world country, we can expect a lot of people to die from nutrient-based illnesses. There comes a point where the economic cost is costing more lives than the virus. Again, I'm glad it's not me that has to weigh up these factors.

Do you understand yet why I'm reluctant to get into the political blame game? I couldn't do a better job, and neither could you, as much as you might like to think you could. If I can say one thing about Boris, it's that he seems to be dealing with the stress pretty well for someone who has also just been ill. He's not crumbling under the pressure. I think he's a world class politician, like Ronaldo/Messi standard. This isn't a measure of trust, this is an observation based on my low opinion of politicians. I'm basically saying he's a good orator, a fantastic liar, brilliant at diverting attention from his own incompetence, and a complete and utter sociopath. I have more faith in such a person to make cold decisions than someone who is too nice for his own good, like Corbyn, who imo would be more likely to make popular and emotional decisions that end up doing more harm than good.

[Poopadoop]

Our lockdown is relatively soft, but is that the fault of government, or the people?

I don't mean soft in the sense that some people aren't following it. I mean soft in the sense that people coming into country weren't being tested or told to isolate. That's one thing. It was also soft compared to ITA, where people were told not to leave the house unless it was absolutely necessary. They may have been too hard, but without any information it would have been better to be safe than sorry. It was also soft in what it considered essential work. When the tube is still crowded after a lockdown, it's not a very effective lockdown. The tube is a fucking petri dish.

Finally, they didn't impose mandatory masks, like places such as Austria did. So there's another way it was almost certainly too soft. And if you compare how our death rates after lockdown are to Austria's (as an example), it's pretty grim. You can't put all that down to density.

I've made two lockdown journeys to buy weed. That's me breaking the law, not just in buying drugs, but making what the government would deem to be a non-essential journey. So If I catch covid while I'm out and about, is that the govt's fault? Or mine?

I don't understand the question. How is the gov't supposed to force 100% compliance? The fault is yours obviously.

If we become a third world country, we can expect a lot of people to die from nutrient-based illnesses. There comes a point where the economic cost is costing more lives than the virus. Again, I'm glad it's not me that has to weigh up these factors.

The irony here is that what we're doing is probably worse for the economy than either extreme would have been. If we had gone in early like SKO, GRE, GER, AUT and done proper TTI, we'd be much better off now. If we'd gone the way SWE did, our economy might be marginally better but we'd prolly have a lot more deaths. What we're doing with our half-assed approach is getting most of the death with little of any possible economic benefit.

Do you understand yet why I'm reluctant to get into the political blame game?

I assume it's because the gov't is pro-Brexit and rah rah Britain, and so you're reluctant to be critical of them.

I couldn't do a better job, and neither could you, as much as you might like to think you could.

I could do a better job in so many ways relating to this. To be fair though, I am a scientist and so I am better qualified than Boris or his cronies to grasp what others are telling me.

If I can say one thing about Boris, it's that he seems to be dealing with the stress pretty well for someone who has also just been ill. He's not crumbling under the pressure. I think he's a world class politician, like Ronaldo/Messi standard. This isn't a measure of trust, this is an observation based on my low opinion of politicians. I'm basically saying he's a good orator, a fantastic liar, brilliant at diverting attention from his own incompetence, and a complete and utter sociopath. I have more faith in such a person to make cold decisions than someone who is too nice for his own good, like Corbyn, who imo would be more likely to make popular and emotional decisions that end up doing more harm than good.

Yeah good thing we have a sociopath in charge instead of someone who cares about people. That's the last thing you want in a global health crisis. Sheesh.

Also, your continued bleating that "a labour gov't would be worse" isn't just irrelevant, it's super lame. How much worse could it even be than it is now?

[OngBonga]

Just reading this Cummings things. The govt are saying it was essential for him to arrange childcare. Fair enough. Taxis are a thing. My housemate is a taxi driver and during lockdown has driven from Ludlow to York (170-odd miles) and to Heathrow (150 miles) to take people where they need to go. A 230-mile taxi is going to cost around £250, £300 at most. Expensive, but not unaffordable, and when normal people are paying what they have to, there's not much sympathy for politicians.

He needs to go. Can't see him surviving this.

[Poopadoop]

btw, UK has lost 2m jobs so far, GER has lost 375k. So if we're worried about jobs (and we should be) maybe we should do what GER and other countries have been doing.

[OngBonga]

I assume it's because the gov't is pro-Brexit and rah rah Britain, and so you're reluctant to be critical of them.

This is an incorrect assumption. I mean I'm not even that patriotic, you just imagined that because I'm pro-Brexit. I'll critisise the Tories when it suits me, such as when they go "waaaaa Russia". And I'll be critical of them if an inquiry implicates them.

It's because I despise knee-jerk politics, and this pandemic is rife with it.

I could do a better job in so many ways relating to this. To be fair though, I am a scientist and so I am better qualified than Boris or his cronies to grasp what others are telling me.

You'd have resigned already because the weight of your mistakes would be too much of a burden.

Yeah good thing we have a sociopath in charge instead of someone who cares about people. That's the last thing you want in a global health crisis. Sheesh.

Imagine if instead of Churchill, we had someone who "cares about people", like "let's not bomb the Nazis too much, remember they're also just soldiers with families, doing their jobs".

During a global health crisis, you need someone in charge that is decisive and doesn't give a fuck what people think about him.

Also, your continued bleating that "a labour gov't would be worse" isn't just irrelevant, it's super lame. How much worse could it even be than it is now?

It could be a lot worse. But that's not what I'm saying about Labour. I simply said that I have more faith in Boris than Corbyn to handle this better. That faith might be misplaced. And I was moaning about opposition in times of crisis. If Labour were in charge, things would probably be exactly the same except it'd be the Tories moaning about Labour instead of the other way around.

btw, UK has lost 2m jobs so far, GER has lost 375k. So if we're worried about jobs (and we should be) maybe we should do what GER and other countries have been doing.

What, fiddling the numbers? If what they're saying is to be believed, then we're not the only country that should be asking "what did Germany do that we didn't?". According to the data, they have fared much better than reasonable comparisons, such as France, Spain, Italy and the UK. This group of four have a similar amount of deaths. Germany is WAY behind. I'm more inclined to think they are counting deaths differently to the rest of us, like people are dying from diabetes instead of covid. Maybe a similar "accounting trick" is at play with regards unemployment, maybe we're counting people who worked under 16 hours (casual) while the Germans are not. idk, but the difference between Germany and its peers is incredible, to the point of suspicious. So huge pinch of salt.

[Poopadoop]

This is an incorrect assumption. I mean I'm not even that patriotic, you just imagined that because I'm pro-Brexit. I'll critisise the Tories when it suits me, such as when they go "waaaaa Russia". And I'll be critical of them if an inquiry implicates them.

It's because I despise knee-jerk politics, and this pandemic is rife with it.

You say that but your go-to response in all this is "Labour would be worse."

Does not compute.

It's also not necessarily pollitical to criticse the gov't. I can criticise the bus driver who doesn't stop when I ring the bell without it being a larger statement about his politics. I don't even care that their leanings are one way or the other right now. I really wish they had done a much better job. But I care that they fucked up and they're still fucking up.

You'd have resigned already because the weight of your mistakes would be too much of a burden.

Uh huh.

If only Johnson and some of his cronies had that attitude.

Imagine if instead of Churchill, we had someone who "cares about people",

In a pandemic you don't HAVE to kill people, in fact you should be trying your best not to.

During a global health crisis, you need someone in charge that is decisive

This is the exact opposite of what Johnson was. If anything he was more like Chamberlain when all the warnings were coming in, pretending nothing was wrong, than Churchill.

What, fiddling the numbers?

Grasping at straws here.

The excess mortality rates say we're the ones undercounting by about 20k. When it all washes out we'll have the most deaths in Europe, 2nd or 4th worldwide in deaths per capita depending on who counts as a country.

I mean you keep defending the gov't like there's something there to defend, like it's possible more could have died under some fantasy scenario where someone else was in charge, so therefore they weren't in the top one percentile of incompetence.

Or, like we shouldn't crticise them. Sorry but that's the kind of thinking that gives the retard kid a medal just for showing up at the track meet in kiddie school. The gov't has to do better than that, and if they don't, they have to put on their big boy pants and face the criticism.

[Poopadoop]

Lol. This is either the best hit job ever or the worst quarantining hypocrisy ever.

Either way,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...P=share_btn_tw

[OngBonga]

You say that but your go-to response in all this is "Labour would be worse."

It's not, you're just massively simplifying things, and not even accurately. I'm pretty sure I've said the word "inquiry" a fuck ton more than I've said "Labour" during this discussion. My main go-to response is fuck the media, I want an inquiry. The fact I don't trust Labour when it comes to economics is a minor factor, and that's the main reason I think it would be worse under Labour. But what the fuck do I know about economics? I might be wrong on that point.

It's also not necessarily pollitical to criticse the gov't.

It's the only function of opposition. If the Tories said they were going to nationalise the railways, Labour would find a way to moan about it. That's what opposition is all about. It's tiresome, the constant political bickering and moral point scoring.

I understand critisism is important, but the way we go about it is tedious and causes social division.

If only Johnson and some of his cronies had that attitude.

Then we'd be in an even bigger mess. I mean the worst thing that can happen right now is a fucking election.

In a pandemic you don't HAVE to kill people, in fact you should be trying your best not to.

You still have to make cold and potentially unpopular decisions that might have grave consequences for some. It helps to be a sociopath, and it's why the job only attracts a special kind of person.

This is the exact opposite of what Johnson was. If anything he was more like Chamberlain when all the warnings were coming in, pretending nothing was wrong, than Churchill.

I'm pretty sure we were all going about our business as though nothing was happening while Italy was getting hit. But for me he has been largely decisive, it's just that he hasn't been making the right decisions. I'm just not prepared to judge him based off social media outrage and gutter press propaganda. I want to wait until people are under oath and obligated to answer questions. That's when we find out if decisions were made with full knowledge that it was an inferior strategy.

The excess mortality rates say we're the ones undercounting by about 20k.

Yeah, we haven't counted care home deaths yet and neither have France. Not sure about Spain and Italy, but that only increases the gulf between us and Germany. It doesn't make any sense to me. Something isn't right.

I mean you keep defending the gov't like there's something there to defend

I can forgive you for thinking I feel passionately about this, but the truth is I don't. I literally only discuss this with you, largely because it's something to talk about, it doesn't occupy my thoughts when I'm not logged into FTR at all.

I'm defending the govt to the point of saying that the critisism should wait until this is over and all the facts are known. That's it. I know Boris is lying through his teeth, I know he's masking his incompetence, but he's the man in charge and right now he's probably the best man for it. Even if he's not, now is the worst time to put him under political pressure. More so when that pressure is coming from indignant moral snobs who are subconsciously trained in knee jerk outrage at every opportunity by the opposition.

The gov't has to do better than that, and if they don't, they have to put on their big boy pants and face the criticism.

That's what inquiries are for.

[Poopadoop]

Germany's fudging the numbers

You act like all the deaths we're having were inevitable and any country that isn't having them is either lucky, or covering up. There's plenty of countries out there that are outperforming us on this. There's even countries in Europe that have fewer deaths/capita right now than Germany (Norway, Greece, Austria, most of Eastern Europe to name a few), despite being hit at roughly the same time.

They're the ones who took things seriously from the start and had their shit together. They stopped people at the border and gave them a test, or if they didn't have enough tests, they made people coming from outside their country stay in quarantine until they had a chance to test them. We did none of that. Ever.

When they found someone with CV, they traced all the people that person had been in contact with and made them quarantine until they'd had a test too. Meanwhile we were having Cheltenham and football matches and Boris going to hospital shaking hands with people.

I mean, I really don't get why you keep acting like it's some mystery, like no-one ever thought about what to do in case of a pandemic and countries are just randomly doing shit and hoping it works. Just because we seem to be doing random shit doesn't mean everyone else has been.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe this will help you understand why different countries are where they are. Certainly is a big part of it.

[OngBonga]

That graph is bollocks. 1.5m cases when we went into lockdown? We're two months into lockdown and there are just over 250k cases. You're drawing conclusions based on a highly speculative number. I mean I'm sure some effort went into these estimates, but they're basically about as provable as God. You're taking those numbers as an act of faith.

Whatever mistakes we've made, we're not alone. I could kind of understand the outrage if we were the only nation in Europe struggling to contain this, but that isn't the case. Nations like Austria and Greece are incomparable to the UK, they are much smaller, both being roughly the same population as London. The only reasonable comparisons in Europe are France, Germany, Spain and Italy, and with the exception of Germany, we're in the same boat. You make it sound like we're the only country in Europe struggling. That is patently not true.

Cheltenham is an interesting issue. Who made the decision for that to go ahead? Did Boris himself think "fuck it, let's do it" or were his hands tied by forces out of his control? If he personally orders it to not go ahead, do you people start calling him a dictator? Cheltenham was a mistake. Whose mistake was it? When we find out who was making these decisions based on what information, that's when we start assigning blame and demanding accountability.

The problem there is corruption, and that is deeply ingrained into our economic and political system. The gambling sector have very powerful lobbyists, and I'm not sure if the PM is capable of taking these lobbyists on. If that's the case, blaming Boris is just too easy, because it's the system that's rotten, and it has been for a very long time, through both Tory and Labour governments, with a splash of Lib Dem coalition thrown in.

I think what you call incompetence, I call corruption. The government are just pawns, they're replaced regularly yet the system never changes. Boris is just the next mouthpiece for the system. I happen to like him more than previous mouthpieces, because he's kinda funny. He has bags more character than all his predecessors in my lifetime. He's not the system, he's just the guy we voted to make us believe we're a democracy.

So if you must start blaming people, try going for those who will still have power in a decade or two, rather than the faces that come and go.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/Glenndalmas/stat...98673616449537

You've gotta laugh at all the journalists outside Cummings' house harassing him for flouting lockdown rules. No irony intended, just absolute jaw dropping moron gutter press.

[Poopadoop]

I really don't understand why you're dying to blame anything and anyone but the gov't, but ok whatever.

[OngBonga]

I'd have a degree of respect for the man if he replied to that woman "ok Karen".

She is the walking definition of "indignant".

[Poopadoop]

I think you misread the situation. His neighbors were out heckling him too. People are seriously pissed, as they should be.

Even the BBC is having a go.

And yeah, like I said, no resignation and no sacking from Boris.

[OngBonga]

I think you missed my point. idk about his neighbours, but the press were bothering him with questions about his conduct while completely failing to observe social distancing. It's ridiculous. Let's not forget I think Cummings should walk. I'm not defending him here, but that clip sums up very nicely everything that is wrong with the MSM. Ambush someone at home, fuck anyone who doesn't want a media circus on their doorstep, be completely oblivious to one's own hypocrisy, whatever it takes to get views. All the better if it's a politician or rich celebrity, the greater sense of indignance people have.

And your second post completely misses my point too. I'm not dying to blame anything and anyone. I'm not assigning blame at all.

I'm not really interested in this blame game.

Take your time reading that and try to understand what those words mean.

[Poopadoop]

I think Cummings should walk.

What, without an inquiry???

[Poopadoop]

I think what you mean is you don't want to assign blame to the gov't. Germans fudging numbers, corporations controlling the gov't, the press, people on twitter, etc., are all fair game. Next you'll be blaming Obama.

[Poopadoop]

A "BooForBoris" is planned for tomorrow at 8pm. People are fed up.

I'm guessing this will have better attendance than the "ClapforBoris" we had after he managed to get himself infected with cv.

[OngBonga]

No, that's just what you want me to mean.

idk about the Germans fiddling the numbers, I'm just suspicious. Corporations do control the govt, wake up dude. The press are a joke, wake up dude. Twitter is a joke, wake up dude. And Obama? He's irrelevant.

I get why you want to believe I'm defending the govt. I represent the opposite of your views. That's the social division I was talking about earlier. You're like this guy...

Why is it that if you know someone's position on climate change, you also know their views about Brexit, teaching with phonics, ending the lockdown, and (in all probability) capital punishment?

You just want to put people in a box. Your mindset is "it's us vs them".

I'm not defending the govt, they're cunts. I'm refusing to assign blame for their incompetence with regards to an event that they were not expecting and not trained for, at least until the time is right for formal accountability. You have to spin it to mean something else so you can put me in your "Tory boy" box.

Maybe you're just jealous that I'm not angry about this, maybe you wish you had the same level of apathy as I do. I'm definitely curious why you're so eager to tell me what I mean. There's a reason you don't accept my position.

[Poopadoop]

For someone who's so apathetic you sure seem keen to jump in too.

[Poopadoop]

All I'm saying is it appears you're looking for excuses for them. This surprises me because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who does even a little looking how bad a job they've done. But I guess you'll be waiting for the inquiry to tell you that. Ok fine.

[OngBonga]

Jump in? You mean talk about it to one person on the internet? By "looking for excuses for them", what I'm actually doing is keeping an open mind. If you want to assign blame to someone, you kind of have to "look for excuses for them" in the sense you have to question if the decisions that have been made are justifiable. The fact you're not "looking for excuses for them" shows you are biased. Your "blindingly obvious" comment reinforces this. It might be obvious to me that mistakes have been made. What is not obvious is if those mistakes can be justified.

I missed those last couple of posts of yours before my recent one...

What, without an inquiry???

I don't think one man making a journey warrants a formal inquiry. You're being inane.

[Poopadoop]

Well you can't both not care and keep jumping in to defend them, even if it's with just one person. But whatever.

So you don't think I've looked for reasons they might be excused? Of course I have. Early in Mar. I assumed they knew what they were doing and had some legitimate reasons for delaying the lockdown measures.

It's just that as time has gone on it's become more and more clear how badly they've been fucking up. Sure, I acknowledge they're human and can make mistakes. I just think they should own up to them if they do - at least I could respect that. Instead, they're going full Trump, telling us what a great job they're doing, how it's not their fault (but it is the scientists we should be blaming) and that if one of them break the rules it's ok 'cause you know he was following his instincts.

And every one of their lies is getting exposed, like how the advice was to shut down NOW and not in a week or two weeks' time, but they kept dithering. That's just one bit of advice they ignored as long as possible - there's a long list but I don't want to keep repeating it over and over to someone who doesn't care.

So yeah, I've run out of excuses for them.

[OngBonga]

Well I haven't run out of excuses for them. An immediate lockdown was not an option. India did that and it was stupid. We did it in stages. I can understand why someone might think that is the best way to do it. It doesn't even mater if I agree or not. What matters is that they did what they thought was the best thing to do. That's acting in good faith. I'd probably ignore someone who says shut down NOW. I'd be concerned about the panic it would cause. We had panic buying anyway, imagine how much worse it would have been if we had 24 hours notice. So many people would swoop on the supermarkets it would be counterproductive.

If they fuck this up beyond an acceptable level, they pay the price for it. Either people resign when this is over, or they get booted out next election.

And you're basically saying that by having an opinion I care. That's not true. I have an opinion on lots of things, like which cars are better... TVR or Porche, but I don't care about it.

[Poopadoop]

I said if the only thing that bothers you is if someone abuses their authority that's a pretty low standard.

What about that is inconsistent with what you said?

[Poopadoop]

This Cummings presser is a gold mine.

tl;dr for anyone not British. Cummings is Boris' chief advisor. It was reported 3 days ago he broke his own lockdown rules by driving 260 miles to visit his parents while he, his wife, and his 4 year old kid were sick with suspected cv. Today he came on TV to tell his side.

So far, he's:

1) admitted returning to work with other gov't officials after going home to visit his wife who he assumed was sick with CV.

2) claimed he couldn't get his hands on a cv test for his wife or himself, despite being the PM's chief advisor.

3) claimed he drove 5 hours to Durham without stopping, and with a four year old in the car.

4) claimed his wife was worried about his eyesight being blurry, and so he took her and the kid on an hour round trip to a nearby castle to check his vision.

5) blamed the press for all the kerfuffle.

6) showed absolutely no contrition whatsoever.

lol, this is so bad it's good.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I can not care about any issue and still call out bad logic / poor reasoning someone else throws out vis-a-vis that issue.

'Cause I care about forming beliefs based on sound reasoning.


... and Poop, you are very quick to jump to conclusions about people based on things they haven't said.

Like a bit ago when I said nothing about being annoyed with anything, and you jumped to conclusions about what annoys me.
I said something to the effect, "So long as POTUS isn't abusing their authority, I don't care what they do."
And you said it was a high bar for being annoyed.

You attributed emotions to me that I never mentioned. I believe this is called projection in your field, right?


You project almost constantly in your posts, here.

[Poopadoop]

Most of the exchanges start off with me saying something factual about either Trump or Boris, and adding a snide remark or two. Then usually Ong tries to tell me the facts aren't what they are or there's some other explanation or it's a conspiracy, and that leads to me pointing out the logical inconsistencies in his arguments, which are usually many because he doesn't do any research and just talks shit off the top of his head. He basically admits he's not interested in knowing the facts and just wants to talk shit.

[OngBonga]

Most of the exchanges start off with me saying something factual about either Trump or Boris, and adding a snide remark or two. Then usually Ong tries to tell me the facts aren't what they are or there's some other explanation or it's a conspiracy, and that leads to me pointing out the logical inconsistencies in his arguments, which are usually many because he doesn't do any research and just talks shit off the top of his head. He basically admits he's not interested in knowing the facts and just wants to talk shit.

This is reasonably accurate. Allow me to put it into my words...

Most of the exchanges start off with poop being outraged about something Trump or Boris said, or did, or failed to do. Then I come along and find a way to engage in some kind of discussion without actually lying about my opinion. Usually it's along the lines of "politics is a shitshow and you're part of the act". Poop points out the logical inconsistencies in my argument, as there are many due to the fact I don't do any research and just talk shit off the top of my head, while ignoring the valid points I make because it's easier for him to argue against the bit where I might be wrong. I basically admit I'm not interested in getting as angry as he gets about politics, and just want to talk shit.

[Poopadoop]

I think in order to feel outraged you need to be surprised. Sadly, not much that goes on anymore in the UK or US surprises me anymore.

[OngBonga]

I think in order to feel outraged you need to be surprised. Sadly, not much that goes on anymore in the UK or US surprises me anymore.

Perhaps outrage isn't quite the right word. Anger will suffice.

[Poopadoop]

One of my problems is, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I express myself very clearly. People rarely misinterpret what I say (apart from Ong, who does so as a matter of habit). I sometimes forget that others can require more words to clarify what they mean and I dont always have the patience to ask them to do so, but rather leap to the wrong conclusion instead. I'll have to work on that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't remember what thread it was in, and given the emotional stuff I'm going through, it's possible I'm not remembering exactly the wording.

I looked a bit, but gave up, 'cause I thought what I posted was close enough to remind you of the conversation.

I do remember that I never said the word "annoyed" and you then used that emotion to describe what I was saying.


At any rate, maybe it's better if I say this,
When I read your posts, I often see you extrapolating ahead of what you're replying to, which in itself is fine, but the fact that you almost uniformly extrapolate into something you disagree with seems unfair to the person you're talking to.

Ong deals with it rather well. I don't.
The reason I don't engage in long conversations with you is because I don't feel like you're upholding your side of the unwritten social contract of communication. I.e. that words are imprecise, and we are minds trying to use imprecise tools to transfer something intangible from our heads to yours. The contract is that we all understand this hurdle and do our best to see the intended meaning, and nothing more or less.


EDIT: Even in the post above, you inject the emotion "bothers" into your response. I said nothing about that. Maybe it's the right word, maybe not... the point is you're projecting an emotion onto me that I didn't state.

[Poopadoop]

I don't remember what thread it was in, and given the emotional stuff I'm going through, it's possible I'm not remembering exactly the wording.

I looked a bit, but gave up, 'cause I thought what I posted was close enough to remind you of the conversation.

I do remember that I never said the word "annoyed" and you then used that emotion to describe what I was saying.


At any rate, maybe it's better if I say this,
When I read your posts, I often see you extrapolating ahead of what you're replying to, which in itself is fine, but the fact that you almost uniformly extrapolate into something you disagree with seems unfair to the person you're talking to.

Ong deals with it rather well. I don't.
The reason I don't engage in long conversations with you is because I don't feel like you're upholding your side of the unwritten social contract of communication. I.e. that words are imprecise, and we are minds trying to use imprecise tools to transfer something intangible from our heads to yours. The contract is that we all understand this hurdle and do our best to see the intended meaning, and nothing more or less.

Yeah maybe. But the thing here is, in your mind it's Ong trying to be reasonable and me not. I think both of us are jiving each other a bit, but not really in a hostile way. It's not like he takes any of his convos seriously, so I don't really take him seriously either.

And yeah, you'll have to tell me the next time you think I'm not arguing in good faith with you. It's possible it's true, but if you let me know the next time you feel that I'll do my best to take it on board.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah maybe. But the thing here is, in your mind it's Ong trying to be reasonable and me not. I think both of us are jiving each other a bit, but not really in a hostile way. It's not like he takes any of his convos seriously, so I don't really take him seriously either.

And yeah, you'll have to tell me the next time you think I'm not arguing in good faith with you. It's possible it's true, but if you let me know the next time you feel that I'll do my best to take it on board.

This is not in good faith.

I'm not talking about ong at all... except that I said he deals with your conversation style better than I do.
You've projected that I find ong reasonable. I never said that.

[Poopadoop]

This is not in good faith.

I'm not talking about ong at all... except that I said he deals with your conversation style better than I do.
You've projected that I find ong reasonable. I never said that.

First of all, you're using projection wrongly and it will annoy me if you keep doing it. Projection is when you attribute to another traits you possess yourself, generally ones that are negative. So no, I'm not saying you find Ong reasonable because I find him reasonable. He's not reasonable at all - he tries to use reason without evidence and fails at it badly.

Maybe what you're thinking of is I'm making assumptions about you based on what you didn't say. Like, the fact that you spent a whole wall of text criticising how I interact with others (and you did say "when I read your posts", not "when you're talking to me"), I interpreted that as suggesting that I was playing unfair with everyone, which I objected to.

So if what you actually meant was how I interact solely with you, then ok I see what you were trying to say.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't see why the way you interact with ong should be prescriptive of the way you act with anyone but ong.

I'm not telling you how to behave.

I'm telling you why I find your form of conversing with ME to be far more effort on my part than when I converse with anyone else, here or elsewhere.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sorry. I need to stop. I'm re-reading my posts just now, and I'm kinda coming off like a whiner.

I'm not trying to do that.
IDK... maybe I'm looking for an argument or something.


Sorry.

I don't really want an argument, and I don't want to sit here and criticize anyone as though I'm some paragon of ideal behavior.
I'm not.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry. I need to stop. I'm re-reading my posts just now, and I'm kinda coming off like a whiner.

I'm not trying to do that.
IDK... maybe I'm looking for an argument or something.


Sorry.

I don't really want an argument, and I don't want to sit here and criticize anyone as though I'm some paragon of ideal behavior.
I'm not.

I don't think you're coming off as a whiiner at all, you're just being honest. That's a good thing.

And don't worry, no-one thinks you're a paragon of good behavior

[MadMojoMonkey]

And don't worry, no-one thinks you're a paragon of good behavior

Ha!

Whew.

[Poopadoop]

I don't see why the way you interact with ong should be prescriptive of the way you act with anyone but ong.

I'm not telling you how to behave.

I'm telling you why I find your form of conversing with ME to be far more effort on my part than when I converse with anyone else, here or elsewhere.

If I don't agree with what someone is saying I'm not going to sugar coat it. Like I said though, if you think I'm being unfair to you in future please do point it out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thanks for understanding. I have been whiny in this convo, and I apologize again for that.
It's at least a bit hypocritical of me to suggest you're not communicating with me as I'd like, while communicating with you in that manner.


Thanks for setting me straight on the projection definition. I did have it mixed up.


I also pride myself on expressing myself cleanly as you said.


Hey, since I may have implied otherwise... you're great! I appreciate your input and willingness to share your opinions so freely.
I appreciate that I'm an "odd duck," too, and that probably more of this is in my head that I realize.

[Poopadoop]

Thanks for understanding. I have been whiny in this convo, and I apologize again for that.
It's at least a bit hypocritical of me to suggest you're not communicating with me as I'd like, while communicating with you in that manner.


Thanks for setting me straight on the projection definition. I did have it mixed up.


I also pride myself on expressing myself cleanly as you said.


Hey, since I may have implied otherwise... you're great! I appreciate your input and willingness to share your opinions so freely.
I appreciate that I'm an "odd duck," too, and that probably more of this is in my head that I realize.

Awwwww, shucks. Thanks, man. Back at ya!

[OngBonga]

It's funny, because I find my arguments to be more reasoned than poop's. I mean, from my pov, I'm open minded and don't rush into judgement, while poop seems outraged and biased. But that's just my pov. Reason is much like morals... what one person finds reasonable, another person might not. Reason is subjective.

I handle poop's style of debate well because frankly I enjoy it. I assume he gets some enjoyment out of it too simply because he doesn't just ignore me.Certainly we bait each other a bit, which is fine. Trolling is fun if it's good natured.

I do agree with mojo though in that poop makes a lot of assumptions, both emotional assumptions and when it comes to trivial points, like assuming I'm looking to blame everyone else when actually I'm hoping to blame nobody. Refusal to engage in blame is seen as defending the accused, and so is critisising those who accuse. When such assumptions are made, it easy to find someone's argument unreasonable, because the argument fails to match the pre-determined judgment.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting that I'm being painted as outraged. Not really the word I would use. Highly critical perhaps, but I'm too burned out by this shitshow to be outraged at this point. Certainly disappointed that it's come to this though.

cf. my post on Cummings' presser. Did that seem outraged or just mocking? I'd say the latter. Fuck, I'm not even outraged by him breaking the rules. Lots of people have probably done it, and he didn't really endanger anyone apart from when he went back to his meeting after seeing his sick wife - that was pretty dumb. What I find repugnant about it if anything is his and Boris' total lack of contrition on the matter.

That said, if I were someone who couldn't visit a sick relative or go to a loved one's funeral because of lockdown and then I heard about his meanderings, I'm sure I'd be massively, massively pissed.

[Poopadoop]

People are now writing reviews on the castle Cummings visited on TripAdvisor. "Great place to get your eyes tested."

This is hiarious.

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attrac...m_England.html

[OngBonga]

Why should they be remorseful? If he genuinely thinks he did nothing wrong, there's no need for contrition. Even less so for Boris.

[Poopadoop]

Why should they be remorseful? If he genuinely thinks he did nothing wrong, there's no need for contrition. Even less so for Boris.

The problem is it's pretty clear he did do something wrong and that they're just doubling down on it rather than fess up. Did you hear him talk about his 30 minute drive to the castle to check his eyesight? Is that convincing to you?

[OngBonga]

Kid probably needed a piss, he might have needed a rest, even a ciggie, I couldn't give a fuck if he stopped to "check his eyesight". I've made three 25-mile journeys to buy weed during lockdown, and you can bet your ass I'd lie about it if someone pointed a camera at me and asked me. I'd be quite the hypocrite to be outraged by some dude who took his kid to Nan and Granddad's while stopping along the way for whatever reason.

[Poopadoop]

Oh wait, I missed Boris' follow up presser on his mate's sniveling lies. brb.

[OngBonga]

I mean if you expect honesty from politicians, you're setting yourself up to be disappointed.

[Poopadoop]

I mean if you expect honesty from politicians

Of course not, but when you're caught you're caught. Other politicians have resigned before, it's not like it never happens.

[Poopadoop]

Would the hyprocrisy would be greater or lesser if you were the one who'd made the rules?

He basically broke his own law three times: First, he went back to work after visiting his sick wife. Second, he drove across the country with a sick wife and sick kid instead of staying in his house. Third, he went on a day trip instead of staying home. The third idgaf about really as long as he didn't come into contact with anybody, but it was still against the rules.

The first, he's definitely guilty, no different than if I or anyone else went to work after visiting a sick wife. The second, he's guilty cause a) it wasn't an urgent child care issue (he wasn't sick himself yet), and b) he could have found someone in London to look after his kid if need be.

[OngBonga]

I think you give Cummings too much credit for the power he has. He's an adviser, a political strategist according to Wikipedia. He is not a politician, nor is he a lawmaker. He's basically Boris' mate. These aren't his laws.

By the way, he encouraged a faster lockdown.

[Poopadoop]

Lol.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...inic-cummings/

[Poopadoop]

So he says lol. There's conflicting information on what his position was. I think I've heard the words "if a few pensioners die, so be it" or some such attributed to him.

Regardless, why is he above the law?

[OngBonga]

Is he above the law? This is actually a police matter and they might yet have something to say.

[OngBonga]

What if he wasn't checking his eyesight and was actually on a secret govt mission to visit a GlaxoSmithKline factory to discuss a vaccine with their people?

[Poopadoop]

And maybe a disguise?

[Poopadoop]

lol I'm sure he parachuted into that meeting with a jet pack and grappling hook and the wife and kid in the car stuff, being an irresponsible twat and all that, that was just his cover story.

[Poopadoop]

"Wait Boris, what if someone recognizes me on my way to the castle? We need a cover story."

"Fwa fwa, oh I don't know, we'll say you were breaking lockdown. How's that old boy?"

"Sounds good to me! But then what -surely there'll be a kerfuffle."

"Well then we'll just add a few more transgressions to make it more believable. Like, let's say you went home, and your wife was sick, so you rushed back to work like an idiot. How about that?"

"Gee, why didn't I think of that?"

"Yes, well, no-one can know that we're making a deal for a vaccine. Can't be giving people hope you know."

[OngBonga]

"Wait Boris, what if someone recognizes me on my way to the castle? We need a cover story."

"Fwa fwa, oh I don't know, we'll say you were breaking lockdown. How's that old boy?"

"Sounds good to me! But then what -surely there'll be a kerfuffle."

"Well then we'll just add a few more transgressions to make it more believable. Like, let's say you went home, and your wife was sick, so you rushed back to work like an idiot. How about that?"

"Gee, why didn't I think of that?"

"Yes, well, no-one can know that we're making a deal for a vaccine. Can't be giving people hope you know."

This attempt at mockery seems actually more plausible than you give it credit for.

[Poopadoop]

It's only obvious because you've chosen to connect some dots that happen to line up in a way that seems to justify your paranoia. Cummings - Castle - GSK - vaccine. If his folks had been in Edinburgh it would have been Cummings -Edinburgh - antibody test factory - we get more tests.

You also ignore the fact that he doesn't have to actually physically go to a castle to meet with GSK people. Do you think he was personally trying out the vaccine on his wife and kid in the special suit they made for him out of titanium alloy? Lol.

But ok, let's assume he was on a secret mission and it was so important that he and Boris were willing to not try very hard to cover it up but instead make it look as though Cummings was deliberately, arrogantly flaunting the lockdown. Why would they do that when it was going to cost so much political capital? Why not just shuttle him to the castle in the back of a white van or something, through the back gate? Why is he there with his whole family?

I mean it's really hard to imagine a scenario where they're even more bumbling than they seem right now, but you're actually managing to conjure one up.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe he was going to meet Hillary and the lizard people.

[Poopadoop]

If he was such a master of espionage one would imagine he'd have a better cover story.

[OngBonga]

If he was such a master of espionage one would imagine he'd have a better cover story.

They're taking the piss. The majority of people will just believe it and instead be outraged about the stupidity of driving somewhere to test if your vision is fit for driving. It's a fantastic distraction.