The_Apocalypse said:

Tres said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.

I thought this male curfew thing was a wry response to the Met telling women in south London not to go out after dark, rather than a serious proposal.

Those were thoughts too, but from the above discussions about it, I got the impression that some were taking the proposal seriously. So I was thinking maybe they’ve heard something that I haven’t.

BluestBlue said:

Gallowgate said:

BluestBlue said:

MaxPB said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.

Believe it or not there's a view in certain quarters that the big issue in all of this is not the ethics and sensibilities of the British tabloid press, or whether or not Meghan Markle was badly treated by the Royals, or whether or not she and Prince Harry were right to speak to Oprah Winfrey, but the "silencing" of brave, free thinking rebels against the woke machine such as Piers Morgan.

Who will think of us, the piteous cry of white, middle aged men everywhere.

Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.

See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.

And yet you won't go into a voluntary 6pm curfew to help women feel safe.

Excellent point.

I also can't believe that no one's suggested a policy of improving representation at senior levels yet. We should be putting women in charge of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office without delay...

You know, making light of women’s anxieties over murder, rape, and sexual assault doesn’t make you look good.

What I'm making light of are the soft-headed identity politics that are being pushed in response to this serious crime. You want real policies that will make women safer? Hire more police, train them properly, and compel their senior officers to put them out on the streets to catch violent offenders instead of trawling Twitter for thought crimes. Have life sentences mean life for murderers and rapists.

Or we can go on signalling our virtue about 6pm curfews for half the population. As you prefer.

MattW said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.

Believe it or not there's a view in certain quarters that the big issue in all of this is not the ethics and sensibilities of the British tabloid press, or whether or not Meghan Markle was badly treated by the Royals, or whether or not she and Prince Harry were right to speak to Oprah Winfrey, but the "silencing" of brave, free thinking rebels against the woke machine such as Piers Morgan.

Who will think of us, the piteous cry of white, middle aged men everywhere.

Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.

See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.

Very strange how the questioning seem to be from groups who say "you can't be a victim because it undermines *my* sense of victimhood." Most peculiar.

The_Apocalypse said:

I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.

Theuniondivvie said:

I can only speak for my own woke white ass, but amplifying my feelings on Spiked would not be part of the grieving process.

https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity/status/1371088862622183428?s=20

isam said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Stocky said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.

Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.

But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.

My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?

Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.

From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.

Yes, my wife has said much the same. She takes all of the same precautions when walking home in the evenings, has her special nightime bright trainers, a flourescent orange jacket, she always phones me as she gets to the tube station, I usually tell her to get an Uber or wait for me to come and get her, she ignores my advice and walks anyway. It's really got her quite worried, the fact that the prime suspect is a police just makes things even worse, that someone like that could get into such a position.

When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already

Stocky said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.

Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.

But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.

My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?

Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.

kinabalu said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.

It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."

kinabalu said:

The_Apocalypse said:

I also don’t think we should curfew all men by 6pm either. I don’t think that’s a serious policy proposal, or at least I hope not. That’s not going to really solve the problem anyway.

It's just a strawman being used by softheads and misogynists to derail a debate about a problem that women have into something they are more comfortable with - a debate about a problem that men have.

isam said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Stocky said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.

Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.

But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.

My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?

Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.

From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.

Yes, my wife has said much the same. She takes all of the same precautions when walking home in the evenings, has her special nightime bright trainers, a flourescent orange jacket, she always phones me as she gets to the tube station, I usually tell her to get an Uber or wait for me to come and get her, she ignores my advice and walks anyway. It's really got her quite worried, the fact that the prime suspect is a police just makes things even worse, that someone like that could get into such a position.

When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1371099312097214464

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1371099312097214464

Get in. The surge begins. That’s almost 1% of the country in A DAY

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

"Douglas Murray engages in what of all the various ploys employed in waging the ludicrous War on Woke is perhaps the most common - making a mountain of a molehill."

Kinabalu.

Douglas Murray is a learned gentleman. Some of us on PB were way ahead of him though...

Good writer. Elegant speaker. A master proponent of urbane bigotry.

Well, he certainly manages to rile all the Left right people. He's a conservative provocateur whose public role roughly corresponds to that of Owen Jones - if Owen were ever correct about anything and had actual talent.

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

Luckyguy1983 said:

isam said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Stocky said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.

Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.

But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.

My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?

Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.

From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.

Yes, my wife has said much the same. She takes all of the same precautions when walking home in the evenings, has her special nightime bright trainers, a flourescent orange jacket, she always phones me as she gets to the tube station, I usually tell her to get an Uber or wait for me to come and get her, she ignores my advice and walks anyway. It's really got her quite worried, the fact that the prime suspect is a police just makes things even worse, that someone like that could get into such a position.

When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already

Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

isam said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Stocky said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.

Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.

But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.

My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?

Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.

From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.

Yes, my wife has said much the same. She takes all of the same precautions when walking home in the evenings, has her special nightime bright trainers, a flourescent orange jacket, she always phones me as she gets to the tube station, I usually tell her to get an Uber or wait for me to come and get her, she ignores my advice and walks anyway. It's really got her quite worried, the fact that the prime suspect is a police just makes things even worse, that someone like that could get into such a position.

When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already

Just having the existing law applied to them would be a start. Your suggestion could have unintended consequences -eg. more police officers willing to cover up for colleagues because they know that if brought to justice they will receive an unfairly long sentence. Can we not just try applying the law fairly across the board?

I think extra punishment for people who are employed by us to keep law and order, and abuse that trust, is fair. It wouldn't be an unfairly long sentence, they would deserve extra

I don't know how you get to anything less than a full life tarrif if the alleged killer is guilty in this case.

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

MarqueeMark said:

kinabalu said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.

It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."

It's an even better way of saying "You have not come up with a way to keep onside that vast majority of men who are sympathetic to the problem - and who have spent their lives not imposing themselves on women nor disrespecting their personal space." Some men are odious creeps. You don't advance the cause by saying "Our default position is to treat all men as odious creeps".

It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.

I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.

Discuss.

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

"Douglas Murray engages in what of all the various ploys employed in waging the ludicrous War on Woke is perhaps the most common - making a mountain of a molehill."

Kinabalu.

Douglas Murray is a learned gentleman. Some of us on PB were way ahead of him though...

Good writer. Elegant speaker. A master proponent of urbane bigotry.

Well, he certainly manages to rile all the Left right people. He's a conservative provocateur whose public role roughly corresponds to that of Owen Jones - if Owen were ever correct about anything and had actual talent.

He is an equivalent to Owen, yes. I agree with that. They are both good writers who at their best make some insightful points from a strongly defined political position. I vastly prefer Jones because his world view is quite close to mine and (I feel) is driven by positivity and hope rather than the bleak fatalism of the likes of Murray. By saying Jones has no merit, btw, you paint yourself as quite ridiculously one-eyed. Dumb move. I think you should take a leak out of my book and retain some objectivity and balance.

gealbhan said:

MarqueeMark said:

kinabalu said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

#notallmen is the new #alllivesmatter.

It's a way of saying - about misogyny and racism respectively - "Oh ffs, shut up about it."

It's an even better way of saying "You have not come up with a way to keep onside that vast majority of men who are sympathetic to the problem - and who have spent their lives not imposing themselves on women nor disrespecting their personal space." Some men are odious creeps. You don't advance the cause by saying "Our default position is to treat all men as odious creeps".

It is very difficult for men to get prosecuted. Far too many women feel the system is stacked against them and the numbers for successful prosecutions bear that out. Here's a man offering a real help. How about in cases of violence/sexual assault by men against women, we shift the criminal burden of proof - from beyond all reasonable doubt to balance of probabilities.

I know that there are cases where that onus may have saved men who were subject to a malicious prosecution by a woman. But to remedy the greater harm, I reckon we'd have to live with that.

Discuss.

This is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing, not one little thing, without a woman or a girl
He's lost in the wilderness
He's lost in bitterness, he's lost lost?

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1371099312097214464

Get in. The surge begins. That’s almost 1% of the country in A DAY

Did you get yours then?

Yep. Zero side effects apart from a slight ache in my upper arm. Also have not died of a blood clot, which is nice

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

isam said:

MaxPB said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Stocky said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

tlg86 said:

Gallowgate said:

algarkirk said:

Gallowgate said:

Bad language warning, but an interesting and illuminating take nonetheless.

A couple of big problems with this analogy. Trivially, a particular named sweet would be easily avoided if they carried that risk; half the human race including dad, grandad, brother, partner, friend, colleague, bloke walking dog, is a different sort of enterprise.

Secondly, it is a deadly weapon in the hands of fascists, anti semites, racists, leftists, extremists of every sort who seek to make an enemy of another group by scapegoating.

But it's not about making enemies. It's about understanding anxiety.

It's understandable that after 7/11 people were anxious when they saw muslim men with rucksacks on public transport. It's just natural human behaviour but of course it doesn't justify discrimination.

The only point being made is that women experience anxiety in lots of situations with unfamiliar men. These are experiences that men may find it hard to understand because they don't experience it themselves.

The point being made is that "not all men" is a worthless retort because it's irrelevant. Nobody is saying all men are predators. They are simply saying they experience anxiety because they don't know which men are predators and which aren't and they want society to protect them better. They want the police to protect them, not commit the violence themselves!

BiB - speak for yourself. Never in my life have I ever looked at someone in public transport and thought they might be a terrorist based on their appearance.

Rubbish. Everyone has prejudices and/or unreasonable anxieties. The task is to be self-aware enough to recognise them and combat them.

But on this specific issue, I don’t have an issue because, and this is controversial, I’m not racist.

It's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting someone must be racist if they experienced anxiety in those circumstances.

My girlfriend has experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder but she isn't sexist. Are you suggesting she is?

Why has your girlfriend experienced greater anxiety around strange men since Sarah Everett's murder? Logically, unless she thinks the wrong man has been detained and the murderer is still at large then the risk is marginally less than before. Also worth pointing out that when I'm walking on my own in London at night (and in my nearest large town for that matter) I experience an element of anxiety too.

From the perspective of me and my female friends/relatives, part of the reason is that the man who is alleged to have done this to Sarah Everard is a police officer. Someone who you’d expect to protect you. The other point is that Sarah took a lot of the precautions that many women do, and yet she was still attacked. Those two things I think are making at least some women feel more scared and powerless.

Yes, my wife has said much the same. She takes all of the same precautions when walking home in the evenings, has her special nightime bright trainers, a flourescent orange jacket, she always phones me as she gets to the tube station, I usually tell her to get an Uber or wait for me to come and get her, she ignores my advice and walks anyway. It's really got her quite worried, the fact that the prime suspect is a police just makes things even worse, that someone like that could get into such a position.

When a police man is killed, the offenders sentence used to be harsher. I dont know if they still are. The wife of the poor policeman killed by the traveller boys started a campaign to see that it was the case. I think maybe policeman who commit crimes should receive harsher sentences than civilians, if they don't already

He will. He's both a policeman and a nonce. A prison sentence will effectively be a death sentence.

This is isn't American TV. The number of people killed in UK prisons is pretty much zero. There are quite a few assaults between prisoners - but most are punch ups.

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid

It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....

We look to be one of the few countries that does science.

They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....

Tres said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.

Believe it or not there's a view in certain quarters that the big issue in all of this is not the ethics and sensibilities of the British tabloid press, or whether or not Meghan Markle was badly treated by the Royals, or whether or not she and Prince Harry were right to speak to Oprah Winfrey, but the "silencing" of brave, free thinking rebels against the woke machine such as Piers Morgan.

Who will think of us, the piteous cry of white, middle aged men everywhere.

Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.

See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.

It is a common but very unfortunate delusion, mainly of those on the left, that you can uplift some people by downgrading others. The failure of Communism didn't teach them, so it's hard to see anything doing the job.

Exploiters don't benefit from exploiting the exploited? Wonder why it happens then.

I don't see the relevance of that question. I am merely questioning:
1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood.
2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder.
3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.

Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.

I see someone is a big big fan of the OTT generalisation.

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid

It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid

It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....

We look to be one of the few countries that does science.

They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....

Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.

If this sentiment spreads...

The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.

A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation

NEW THREAD

Leon said:

Floater said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid

It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....

We look to be one of the few countries that does science.

They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....

Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.

If this sentiment spreads...

The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.

A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation

Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?

Yes. Inexplicable. Are they going to do a huge and conclusive study into the alleged dangers of AZ in.... ‘one week’?

Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.

Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

Floater said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid

It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....

We look to be one of the few countries that does science.

They don't want the jab? Fuck 'em and their medieval mindsets....

Vaccinological Twitter is awash with two conspiracies. The first of course is anti-vaxxery - See, we told you the jabs were dangerous. Etc.

If this sentiment spreads...

The second is angry Europeans accusing their governments of trying to shift the blame for a slow vaccine roll out on to AZ. If you’re about to have an embarrassing slowdown in jabs, how convenient if you can use ‘public health concerns’ as a cover.

A lot of Irish people, in particular, are making this accusation

Well - a weeks pause (Ireland) seems strange does it not?

Yes. Inexplicable. Are they going to do a huge and conclusive study into the alleged dangers of AZ in.... ‘one week’?

Again, all these countries need to do is look at one of the biggest vaccine studies in human history: the tens of millions of Britons who have been jabbed. Are deaths down? Yes, plunging. Are hospitalisations down? Yes, plunging. Could this just be lockdown? No, deaths and hospitalisations are falling fastest in the already-jabbed category.

Is there a dramatic surge in unexplained deaths from thrombosis, or other - alleged - vaccine-related afflictions? No, there’s no evidence whatsoever

As a Brit, is a rather rare wonderful warm feeling - to be on top of the world at something. It's been a good few years now since we last felt that sense of national smugness - at being able to put on a decent Olympics opening ceremony.

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

RobD said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

But the UK has pumped millions of AZ jabs into millions of British arms. With no reported issues AT ALL

Unless there is some huge conspiracy to cover up hundreds/thousands of deaths, then this must logically be coincidence.

I think it's simpler than that, it's (in their eyes) the UK vaccine, so it doesn't get a free pass like Pfizer is apparently getting.

Probably. 4 non-elderly sudden deaths just looks, to the naked eye, something to think about. Sicily pop 5 million, no of jabs given unknown.

Not consp theorising, just saying.

You can work out the maths, very roughly. Sicily has done 500,000 jabs. I believe Italy is largely relying on AZ but lets say half of those jabs are AZ. That’s 250,000.

So the risk appears to be 0.0016% IF there is a causal link (unknown)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196406/number-of-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-in-italy-by-region/

What are the numbers in an equivalent period in a pre-jab timeframe? Probably not far off 0.001% is my guess.

Even if it is proved that AZ can cause fatal thrombosis in 0.0016% of people (16 in every million) any sane person should still take it, because out of a million Covid cases, 10,000 will die and 50,000 will go into intensive care, with all its consequences, and an unknown but similarly large number will suffer Long Covid

It feels like the UK is the only country that does maths. Let’s hope I’m not being hubristic....

The current dissing of the AZ vaccine in the name of the precautionary principle is of a piece with what went before: a flagrantly irrational anti-British stance motivated by apparent jealousy which is damaging untold numbers in Europe and the Third World as it is among the cheapest and most easily storable available.

And it’s sold not-for-profit. The whole thing is mad. And sad

While virtue-signalling about exporting the very expensive BioNTech vaccine...

gealbhan said:

rcs1000 said:

TimT said:

IshmaelZ said:

Four non-elderly deaths in Sicily shortly after AZ being administered; 3 from one batch, the 4th a different one.

Very odd.

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2021/03/13/news/astrazeneca-un-altro-caso-in-sicilia-dopo-il-vaccino-in-gravi-condizioni-un-insegnante-di-37-anni-1.40022800

Odd, but still not causative necessarily. Do apparent 'clusters' happen as a result of randomness? Absolutely! Do we know that is the case here? Not yet. Worth investigating, but also essential not to jump to conclusions.

Same happened here locally - a cluster of strange cancers around Fort Derrick (former US BW programme R&D base). Multiple in depth studies can find no causative link; models predict that across the US such clusters can be expected from randomness. Public does not (want to) understand.

It is also worth noting that a physician died after taking the (I think) Moderna vaccine, and it was considered to be pretty likely it was the result of the vaccine.

It is perfectly *possible* that AZ is connected with a very small increased risk of clots. But it seems extremely unlikely that the risks of taking the vaccine (even if this is the case) are even 1% of the risks of not taking the vaccine.

The problem is, though, that humans don't think that way. If you offer someone a 5% chance of dropping dead in the next year, or a 1% chance of dropping dead immediately following an injection, followed by 0% chance of dropping dead in the following year, you'd find a lot of people going for the first option.

Human beings believe what they want to believe, despite science. Their knowledge is formed by more than science. If a COVID vaccine is made by a company that cocked up and covered up previously, over a morning sickness pill for example, it doesn’t take the most sophisticated internet conspiracy to sow doubt in people’s minds wether it is 100% safe.

When a Boris, or a Monarch or a Chairman Mao says kill all sparrows, how many people instantly question it on basis of science?

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

"Douglas Murray engages in what of all the various ploys employed in waging the ludicrous War on Woke is perhaps the most common - making a mountain of a molehill."

Kinabalu.

Douglas Murray is a learned gentleman. Some of us on PB were way ahead of him though...

Good writer. Elegant speaker. A master proponent of urbane bigotry.

Well, he certainly manages to rile all the Left right people. He's a conservative provocateur whose public role roughly corresponds to that of Owen Jones - if Owen were ever correct about anything and had actual talent.

He is an equivalent to Owen, yes. I agree with that. They are both good writers who at their best make some insightful points from a strongly defined political position. I vastly prefer Jones because his world view is quite close to mine and (I feel) is driven by positivity and hope rather than the bleak fatalism of the likes of Murray. By saying Jones has no merit, btw, you paint yourself as quite ridiculously one-eyed. Dumb move. I think you should take a leak out of my book and retain some objectivity and balance.

Artificial balance is, well, artificial. I've almost never agreed with a word that has emerged from Owen's mouth, have been repelled by most of them, and have observed that he almost never gives his political opponents an inch. So he can hardly complain when the compliment is returned.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Andy_JS said:

"Being told we can't question 'the truth' of anyone who says they're a victim is more evidence of the world's mass derangement

Douglas Murray"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9359085/DOUGLAS-MURRAY-told-question-truth-evidence-worlds-derangement.html

Funny, there still seems to be a whole shitload of questioning the truth of anyone who says they’re a victim going on. I think Murray, The Mail, The Express, the Tele, the Speccie, Spiked, Unherd etc etc can rest easy.

Believe it or not there's a view in certain quarters that the big issue in all of this is not the ethics and sensibilities of the British tabloid press, or whether or not Meghan Markle was badly treated by the Royals, or whether or not she and Prince Harry were right to speak to Oprah Winfrey, but the "silencing" of brave, free thinking rebels against the woke machine such as Piers Morgan.

Who will think of us, the piteous cry of white, middle aged men everywhere.

Yep, that exact point hits me over and over with all of this stuff. With the usual caveat of "everything is very very complex" (which it is, not being snarky), white people and male people (and especially the combination) have had, by and large, the best of it (often at the expense of others) for a long long time. And yet now, when asked merely to have a think about that, and possibly give up a little of that male and white privilege, not only do they demur, they go absolutely apeshit at the very thought. It's like, forget about slavery, forget about women treated as chattels, WE are now the victims and OUR victimhood is on a par with the worst that history has to offer. ALL lives matter! Not ALL men! Cancel culture! Where's my platform! Why can't I book a table anymore like I used to! It really is pathetic.

See how I can take your one pithy sentence and expand it tenfold without adding much of any substance.

It is a common but very unfortunate delusion, mainly of those on the left, that you can uplift some people by downgrading others. The failure of Communism didn't teach them, so it's hard to see anything doing the job.

Exploiters don't benefit from exploiting the exploited? Wonder why it happens then.

I don't see the relevance of that question. I am merely questioning:
1. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's victims by gender, colour, and historical victimhood.
2. Your tenuous and patronising grouping of life's fatcats by gender, colour, and historical rapine plunder.
3. Your utterly baseless assertion that we can make any meaningful positive difference to the lives of Group 1, by making the lives of Group 2 less happy.

Like all left wing solutions, the end game is a stagnant pond of human misery looking enviously on at those who just got on with living and enjoying life.