timps

This claim leaves out important context and while the claim contains an element of truth, it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression if presented correctly. The average for an entire country cannot be used to calculate an individual’s chance of dying from the virus. In the US, for instance, Data from May showed nearly all U.S. deaths from the virus were among people who haven’t received the vaccine which does alter narrative if that was also taken out of context (e.g. Unvaccinated COVID death rate is 99%). While there is little empirical, population-level evidence on the effectiveness of face masks at preventing respiratory transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence there is does suggest that the widespread use of face masks by the general public might aid in limiting the SARS-CoV-2 the only way we will find out was by using them. This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there. This is widely disputed in the scientific community, everyone who has looked at the studies either found widespread fraud (a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on COVID have serious errors or signs of potential fraud) and none have shown any proof of prevention and those trials that do look promising but not conclusive are for treatment, not for prevention, of disease. While it is more of a risk for the elderly of age and those with underlying health conditions they are not the only ones at risk for severe disease. I would love to know where you got these figures from. The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone. However, because crucial hurdles to develop the mRNA vaccines were resolved by many researchers, Malone cannot be claimed the inventor of this vaccine technology only a co contributor. His other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will. This is not a yet a peer review study and as such should not be used as fact. As I posted earlier the recent University of Oxford study disagrees with it but like this one it isn’t peer reviewed, so we will have to wait to find out which one is correct in its conclusions as they are both claiming different things. How best to tackle this virus is a work in progress and mistakes will be made, however, the scientific proof is that the vaccines have saved lives. Is the total vaccination and booster jabs for the population including children, pregnant women the way forward? I don’t know, but misinformation pretending to be scientific fact is definitely not the way forward and does not help the debate.

Try looking here https://www.cpsa.co.uk/search?q=radar#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=radar&gsc.page=1 "A Guide to Target Distance and Target Speed Discipline Discipline Target Distance Approximate Target Speed Olympic Trap 76m +/- 1m (83yd +/- 1yd) Double Trap 55m +/- 1m (60yd +/- 1yd) ABT Trap 75m +/- 1m (82yd +/-1yd) (56mph +/-1pmh) DTL 45.72m to 50.3m (50yd to 55yd) (42mph +/-1mph) Olympic Skeet 65m to 67m (71yd to 73yd) (High 53mph Low 54mph +/- 1mph) National Skeet 50m to 52m (54.7yd to 56.9yd) (High 43mph Low 44mph +/- 1mph) Trap discipline measurements taken from Front of Trap House. Skeet discipline measurements taken from Exit window of High and Low House Three shooting grounds have been independently checked by board members, confirming compliance with the correct target distance for the Trap and Skeet disciplines the speed measured related to the guide details. From 1st April 2012 the Standard practice for grounds is a target as set out in the discipline rules. The three grounds checked by the board, already use a Speed Gun as a target measurement set up tool. Bill Jones"

Depends which study you look at. A University of Oxford one realised on Thursday disagrees. “People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 are less likely to spread the virus even if they become infected, a new study finds, adding to a growing body of evidence that vaccines can reduce transmission of the delta variant. British scientists at the University of Oxford examined national records of nearly 150,000 contacts that were traced from roughly 100,000 initial cases. The samples included people who were fully or partially vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as people who were unvaccinated.” … “It’s the highest quality study we have so far on the question of infectiousness of vaccinated people infected with delta,” said Dr. Aaron Richterman, an infectious disease physician at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the research.”

My guess is a personality flaw that seeks notoriety / media whore. Be the poster boy / girl of a cause with your face on every conspiracy website and / or news outlet with an agenda rather than being an obscure family doctor that no one has heard of. Once down that rabbit hole the personality trait will not let you turn back even if that means you are struck off the medical register. I can think of one person whose name cannot be typed on this forum does the same every time gun related issues hits the news. There does seem to be a lot of money in this conspiracy expert business though 🤔 It’s a good job I don’t need the money as I have just released my anti 5G radiation shooting glasses to protect from 5G eye dominance issues at only £250 a pair with free anti Bill Gates tracking score card pencil and eraser on the first 100 orders.

The problem I have with her is quite simple she has ONLY used evidence that supports her narrative. Yes she is entitled to her opinions and theories but she really does need evidence to back them up and rebut evidence that doesn’t agree with her views otherwise her opinions are those of a crank not an academic. The one piece of evidence that condemns her as a crank in my mind is the CDC report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report On page 1061 It quite clearly states the limitations of the report. “The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak.” Therefore the authors of the report make it quite clear and not open to debate that she should not be using the data contained in the report to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the vaccines in any way shape or form. The other three limitations also go on in detail why the data cannot be used due to detection bias, demographics and underlying health conditions. She clearly ignores these four limitations (and as they state at least 4 they accept there could be more) and uses the bare bones figures against the authors limitations to push her theory hoping to give gravitas to her stance to those that don’t read or fully understand the report. It begs the question why? The only options that I can see are:- 1) she didn’t read the report, so she shouldn’t be commenting on it or using data in it. 2) She doesn’t understand what limitations of a report are and why they are important to the efficacy of any study or report, so she shouldn't be commenting on it or using data in it. 3) She’s a crank trying to push an agenda and purposely tried to mislead people with sound bites that she knows as a qualified professional are incorrect and shouldn’t be used as she used them. As a professional that writes scientific expert witness reports any of the above makes me treat her with utter contempt no excuse. Whether or not heard immunity is ever achieved or lives saved or not she will never be proved right as one thing I can be assured of, she contributed nothing to the debate. She just took data that she had nothing to do with and used it out of context. If the CDC come back with clarification and remove the limitations then fair enough, but that just proves they are right and have done due diligence not her. Sorry rant over 😂 cheers 👍

I refer you to my hypothetical Swedish study in my previous post, the papers don’t state vaccines do not prevent transmission her misinterpretation and context of the data does. If you read the link you posted earlier it tells you quite clearly the problem in how she has interpreted the figures in the case studies, so I’m not saying its not true the link posted says it is not true and I just agree with them. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/562923a1 Yes but the article points to mandating in health care which has been the case for the UK since 1974 so why is she now against it? Who says the disease is free to travel? Her wrongful interpretation of hand picked case studies ? Plenty of other case studies disagree with her on that,I posted a long post on another thread explaining it all. A percentage of people are protected from infection in those case studies just not all and as long that figure is at a high enough percentage herd immunity exists but I have no intention of going over all that again on this post here. And no it is not perhaps MORE likely at all and I have no intention of going over that again either. Exactly but unfortunately you are completely biased the other way, the article you posted makes these 7 points and more, the link above provides the full article should anyone want to read context:- 1) Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Now Pointless" is flawed 2) significantly out of context 3) Data from this report are insufficient to conclude the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 4) underrepresented because of detection bias. 5) The Daily Expose has also misinterpreted a preprint paper by the Oxford University 6) An AP fact check found the study was designed to compare how different strains of coronavirus impacted viral load, not vaccination status. 7) Contrary to Pierpont's conclusion that vaccine mandates are a "potentially harmful, damaging act," experts have agreed that while vaccines will not stop everyone from becoming infected, they do help reduce the severity. So I’m not trying to say she is a lunatic anti vaxxer I’m saying as the article does she has used the data incorrectly either by design or ineptitude. Therefore, what I’m am saying is she is either an anti vaxxer or inept you can choose which. Unless she comes up with a study that backs her point i wont change my mind but the data she is currently using does not back her stance her flawed interpretation does.

That is political rather than a scientific question so not what I’m discussing on this subject. However for completeness, in terms of freedom (leaving the house) or going to the shops no I don’t and I have never heard that being suggested over here. However keeping your job, that’s a different matter and the main crux of the article. Mandatory vaccination for workers has already been in place for a long long time (HSWA 1974) and certainly if you want to be a healthcare or laboratory worker in some sectors. They have insisted on jabs protecting from different diseases Hep B, BCG, Varicella etc. for a long long time. The same with certain leisure destinations, so hardly new. My mum worked for the NHS as a senior podiatrist and was told no jab no job years ago. She does say which prove the alleged Delta Covid-19 variant is evading the current Covid-19 injections on offer and therefore do not prevent infection or transmission of Covid-19. And she concludes that mandating the public to take a vaccine is a harmful and damaging act. So she is hardly in favour of the vaccination, if it does not protect from infection and is a harmful and damaging act then It’s not a stretch to reach my conclusion. If its just for political freedom of choice reasons then she must also be against surgeons, laboratory staff and health care workers being vaccinated from the other diseases I mentioned as well.

I agree a fringe thinker with proof and I stress the word proof are to be encouraged. Most of the worlds greatest scientists were considered heretics at one point in history. However people who will say anything or bend the facts to jump on a platform or bandwagon are a different matter. No the main point of the piece was to say :- “Which leads the Doctor of Medicine to conclude that natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination because all severities of Covid-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity.” Which is utter rubbish and is saying they are totally ineffective as it’s better not to be vaccinate not that they are less effective. Out of Context is quite simple :- take the figures of the studies out of all context. It’s like me looking at a case study in Sweden. In this study 500 people were tested, 80% tested positive, Of this 80% positive 100% were Swedish nationals. In conclusion COVID only effects Swedish people The figures are right but the context is rubbish. I could use the same study and because 100% of all those that tested negative were also Swedish then COVID does not effect Swedish people depending on my narrative. She might be a fringe thinker but her proof to back up her thinking is ******** so I’ll ignore her.

Ridged thinking is only endemic in the scientific community unless proven otherwise. Speaking as someone who works in the scientific community we cannot get stuck in debate after debate with unproven disagreements from fringe thinkers, we need to move on otherwise every scientific debate would start with is the earth flat and never move on.You have to accept certain facts unless proved to the contrary otherwise science would stagnate in the past. Ms Pierpont hasn’t conducted any studies, hasn’t done any tests, clinical or otherwise,hasn’t proved any theory’s. All she has done has quoted other people’s work, mostly out of context, to try prove her own narrative in nothing more than a newspaper editorial. If she had come forward with case studies / tests of her own then more in the scientific communities would giver her the time of day or at least review it. As she hasn’t we are waiting for the people who actually carried out the case studies to comment further and non have so far said COVID vaccines are ineffective.

Yes if you are convicted of threatening behaviour or assault but not if just charged. You will lose your guns whilst it is being investigated but if no conviction you will get them back and as I understand it, but could be wrong, he was never convicted. I was a witness and gave a statement to an alleged assault, the police arrested, charged and issued a restraining order for the individual to keep out of the village. The above was based on the alleged victim’s statement and two witnesses. The reason why the charges were dropped was the landlord and landlady plus about 15 other people including me gave statements to the defence solicitor and were prepared to give them under oath in court, where as the two for the prosecution did not want to now attend court. The difference in statements were. Prosecution: Defendant runs over with bottle in hand and hits alleged victim over the head with a bottle causing cut to defendants’ hand and cut to victim’s head. Defence: alleged victim runs over flying headbutts defendant (who by the way was dancing with the landlady and had no idea of the impending head butt) both crash into a table of drinks, glass everywhere, cuts to head and hand happened, alleged victim thrown out of the pub. Less than two years later the lad applied for and got his certificate, I don’t think it’s right for him to be banned or lose his certificate based on the above. His dancing is bad but doesn’t deserve a flying headbutt never to own a gun, however maybe the police should have insisted on dance management lessons. Now I am not saying this is what happened in Plymouth(no anger management here) but if he had a certificate at the time his guns would have gone whilst investigated then given back. So, without the full disclosure of what happened in Plymouth it’s too early to completely condemn the police or even exonerate them.

But what specific legislation and/or restrictions would you put forward to combat this? Employing an army of FEO’s to scroll daily through every social media platform checking names and potential aliases against a central database of every licence holder in the country and reading hours of drivel, “you ok hun” posts and pictures of last night tea just in case? Or are you suggesting we now as licence holders hand over our internet privacy to the police where everything we do online is monitored? Looking at someone’s digital footprint after they have done something is easy, my Facebook is locked down to friends only, my presence here is a nickname the police would be unaware of. However, if I was to commit some kind of atrocity someone on my social media friends list would give the media access and as plenty on here know my real name that would also be guaranteed to be passed on as well. People will always come forward after an event stating they ‘knew’ but strangely they never thought to come forward before to preempt it. Im not saying the police acted correctly in this case, I genuinely don’t know, I just don’t see how you can legislate to search the digital footprint of every licence holder, and even if they did getting around it to remain anonymous from normal police resources is still easy.

You don’t actually need a S11(6) permit for the grounds instructors as Section 11A(3)(ii) also covers non certificate holders borrowing a shotgun. As I posted in the post you quoted, under this section a non certificate holder can borrow a shotgun in the presence persons authorised in writing by the occupier (person running the clay shoot) which in the case of a clay ground would only be one of their instructors or staff, there is then no need for a S11(6) exemption only to give the instructors / staff a piece of paper stating they are authorised. As I said in the previous post it is completely the wrong interpretation of authorised in my opinion for any ground with an S11(6) exemption in place but I can see that being the direction some FEO’s will be wrongly insisting on. Confusing the requirements of 11A(3)(ii) which needs someone authorised in writing from the shooting ground with the requirements of S11(6) which just needs a certificate holder. A post a while ago was from someone who is involved in a shoot who was told by the FEO that they could only allow non certificate holders to shoot with their instructors so it has already happened at one ground if that post is to be believed. FEO’s don’t always follow current guidelines, take medical reports for instance, the majority of police forces in England and Wales have now departed from Home Office guidance notes and are imposing mandatory GP screening for all applications for shotgun, firearm and explosives certificates. With the wording on North Yorkshire police website I can see them insisting on it, combine that with the previous thread stating they have been told to do this and you can see why I came to this conclusion.

Maybe who knows, 1 gun doesn’t condemn or make the whole brand that’s for sure but it definitely put us both off the brand. I guess by the fate of Lanber unfortunately others felt like us. I’m glad yours wasn’t like my mates.

If you look at the world of competition shooting none of the bigger shoots ever seems to get won by the ‘budget’ gun makers. I often read anecdotal forum posts of the farmer turning up to the shoot with his Baikal held together with twine beating the skeet vest and expensive gun brigade, just I’ve never seen it at any of the registered shoots or big shoots. But I have seen big shoots won by entry level Miroku or Beretta’s and not all of them are sponsored, they have chosen and bought the gun, so that’s where I guess the change happens for whatever reason. When I first started, me and my friend were shooting at least 300 sometimes more clays a week, he had a new Lanber and I had a 2nd hand Browning Citori 325. The Lanber shot great, I thought maybe I should have gone for one, however, just after a year and a half of this amount of shooting the Lanber was like a piece of old rope and my Browning was still as tight as the day I first shot it. If he had just shot a few clays a month then the Lanber would have been a great gun, he swapped it for a Beretta 682 gold e and never looked back. But money doesn’t always buy reliability seen enough issues with Perazzi and Krieghoff to know that. My DT10 back when it was newish gun was my limit between price and value closely followed by my Caesar Guerini that replaced it.

Using the same website www.worldometers.info Latvia’s urban population percentage is 69 % whilst the UK is 83%, Netherlands is 92% and Malta is 93%. So those little hamlets do add up and make a difference when comparing different countries. As a side note I did Vilnius in Lithuania to Riga in Latvia on a 2 h 45 min bus journey in 2017 whilst staying in Eastern Europe, so I have seen first hand how spread out theses hamlets, villages and towns are however, it is where 31% of the Latvian population live which will skew any comparison data comparing countries.

Initially from controlled clinical trials that are based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ compared with how many people who got the placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. These were on a scale never seen before but were carried out before the vaccines were ever approved for general use. They do give a very good indication to efficacy of the vaccine and how it will behave in real world use. However, effectiveness in the real world can differ from the efficacy measured in a trial. Consequently, this data is now also been compared with data (positive tests, symptoms, hospitalisation and deaths) from the mass testing now on going in the real world and comparing those who are vaccinated to those that are not and seeing if the efficacy given in the trials are similar. Remember the “60% protection from infection – sterilising” is from my hypothetical vaccine (which I hope to get a hypothetical Nobel prize for) and some vaccines achieved more than this 60% in tests which are now being replicated in the real-world data.

What I said is the current COVID vaccines are not 100% sterilising in how they work but did explain that in my other posts. If the vaccine is 95% effective in preventing death only a percentage of that will be by sterilising (protection from infection). Some vaccines are 100% sterilising in how they work, the COVID ones aren’t that type. So for my hypothetical COVID vaccine it is broken down like this. 95% protection from death - protection from disease 90% protection from serious illness - protection from disease with mild or moderate symptoms. 60% protection from infection - sterilising (the current vaccines are broken down like the above just the percentages vary depending on which one you look at) Therefore in my HMS Queen Elizabeth example 95% of the crew are protected from death and we only have to protect the 5% that are at risk by using heard immunity. Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community becomes immune to a disease, making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. As a result, the whole community becomes protected not just those who are immune. The percentage of people who need to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity varies with each disease.The proportion of the population that must be immune to COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known, however, it has been shown herd immunity starts at 60% for certain diseases. Therefore with a 100% vaccinated crew with a vaccine that gives 60% sterilising protection then 60% protection from infection is ultimately achieved hence my example. However, a navy ship is a bad example for herd Immunity due to the density population and living conditions not being the same as civilian life. But it does show that only a small percentage of the crew caught COVID therefore protection from infection is high but not at 100% as some caught it with the vaccine which was my original point, however, non died so it did it’s job. But one thing is for certain herd immunity doesn’t require 100% protection from infection to work, that is just called total immunity and not herd Immunity so you do need to change your definition in line with the medical one. Hence if the percentage protected from infection meets the threshold for herd immunity, then you have herd immunity and the chances of an unprotected person catching the disease is diminished greatly protecting them. Bearing the above in mind, highly transmissible diseases need a higher percentage of protection from infection to work. But a percentage of those that are vaccinated but not protected from infection still have the blueprint to fight COVID and instead of being infectious for 10 days with a bad cough they are infectious for a greatly reduced amount of time with mild symptoms (less or no coughing). This statistically reduces the chance of transmission (r number) and ultimately lowers the % threshold needed for herd Immunity, so it does play a part in herd immunity via vaccines. To be honest I’m not going to debate herd Immunity all week, I can’t and really don’t want to explain it any better and there are countless medical research papers that do a better job than I.

But this is to be expected, the vaccine is not 100% effective or 100% of the population vaccinated, so when things open up there would inevitably be an initial increase in deaths. Population density (P/Km²) and a high urban population can also skew data. The Netherlands, UK and Malta are at the high end of both in Europe. Latvia and others on the list you posted are at the bottom end, variables like that can and do skew the data somewhat. Of course it can, there are plenty of articles explaining how and why this is the case. As said the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing infection but the data indicates it does prevent infection in a percentage high enough to reach herd immunity. The rest, as said before will get infected but should have mild or asymptomatic symptoms, and a few, unfortunately will die. Herd immunity is reached at 60% and above protection from infection, although debate is on going how much above 60% for the different COVID variants. If 41% or over of HMS Queen Elizabeth were infected then you’d have a point, if not then herd Immunity has been reached according to its definition.

Not according to the UK’s data, an increase in cases but not the same increase in deaths compared to the previous spikes. Comparing country to country is also flawed, a country that actively tests more of its populous is going show more cases. A country that has a slow vaccine roll out is probably going to have a slow or reduced testing regimens as well hence less cases recorded. Herd Immunity, vaccines only work if a certain percentage of the population have it. Vaccines are just a blueprint so your bodies immune system can fight it, some peoples immune system are incapable even with this blueprint. If COVID is rampant in the younger generation then those people young or old will die. Just like other vaccination programs Measles, mumps, polio when the vaccination rates drop as with the MMR jab scare infections take hold. Therefore with a vaccinated younger generation a percentage will be made immune so no transmission, another percentage while infected will deal with the virus much quicker so a greatly reduced transmission rate. As long as those two categories are above a certain percentage of population you have herd immunity and protect the weak and vulnerable immune systems of others.

Or the vaccine is working depending on which narrative you favour. Very few vaccines produce sterilising immunity (protection from infection) certainly anyone designing an influenza jab knows this. Years of study on influenza vaccines show they typically induce protection from disease, but not necessarily protection from infection so I doubt for one second anyone with a passing knowledge of vaccines thought that.

Depends who you ask 🤷‍♂️

Yes I saw the ? Hence I answered, but you did say “but I rather see it as the test phase of a bigger pandemic” That is not a question, that is a statement as you see it, hence I assumed it was your view. So what are they testing ? From your post it certainly seems you were intimating a one world government was the end game and this pandemic was part of it, albeit a first test. But if it’s a test someone must have instigated it and have future plans, that’s what I don’t buy into regardless of whatever the end game actually is. So I wouldn’t call it something completely different. Even if we take the one world government out of it, your favoured theory is that persons unknown released the virus to frame China on the pretext for virtually any measures against China up to and including war. Like I said country’s don’t need a pandemic to do that and who are these people trying to frame China and for what ultimate goal? How is the pandemic going to help them achieve this goal? I just don’t buy that this virus was purposely released for some nefarious purpose. I also don’t buy into all the governments of the world being simultaneously complicit in the controlling of their population through the use of this virus. So that leads me to believe it’s an accidental outbreak from a lab or occurred in nature naturally.

You have just taken my original examples added to them and reinforced my whole point so I’m not too sure what you are trying to say different to me here. I understood your point to be that the pandemic was planned so the government could enact legislation via a state of emergency to form a one world government. Governments give us the freedoms and unfortunately governments take some away, that has been happening since parliament was first formed. We certainly have more rights than we did 100 years ago so to say it’s the gradual erosion of basic freedoms is not quite right. If we stick to the late 80’s then we have more freedom in some areas and less in others. To what extent am I happy, I’m not, but the only alternatives are complete lawlessness and no taxes or we have some form of control which ultimately restricts freedoms some good some bad. To ask you the same question what extent would you be happy? A government that allowed everyone to do what they wanted no matter what the consequence to others? No it doesn’t but on a world wide scale in league with other billionaires to form one world government yes that does sound implausible. Billionaires tend to shape policies that affect their businesses ability to earn in their country of business or political favours in their country of residence. But them joining together to form a one world government or releasing a pandemic is something I do struggle with. Well the thread is about vaccine passports so the next logical step was identity cards and so on to the ultimate end of what the protagonists who started the pandemic want to achieve. Going to war against China is something no one wants to do even if your equipment and soldiers are 10 times better you are still vastly outnumbered. Releasing a virus that decimates your own economy just so you can pin it on China to start a war or be able to add sanctions is crazy theory. The west has been able to sanction China on human rights / national security or an all out trade war without the need of an elaborate pandemic plan. As to my theory, as I said, it wasn’t a premeditated thing so I am open to all versions that don’t include a premeditated action by person or persons unknown to release a pandemic on the world for political or some other gain.

Governments do control our behaviour though, it’s to what extent, you make it sound like we have ultimate freedom at the moment soon to be oppressed to the degree of China because of a vaccine passport. You just need to look at things that are now banned or taxed out of existence already to know our freedom is at the behest of our government. Am I ok with it, well it’s the price of democracy, someone somewhere will try and ban a hobby / sport / pastime I like doing because it’s not to their liking or damages the environment. The trouble is there are laws and limits on other freedoms that I do agree with so I have to accept it’s the price of democracy. As I said the only disagreement was how to control it until the vaccine was ready which is what you’ve highlighted. In my other post I also said the media was looking for profits of doom so gave them a platform, celebrities and medical experts are not the government so you can’t really blame the government for their views however misguided. Incompetence is not a conspiracy as I previously said how the government has done on this pandemic ranges from good to bad depending on your point of view. Regarding big Pharma the Astra Zeneca vaccine is at cost, the others well they are companies and companies do try and tun a profit. The clinical trials were held before approval are you saying they weren’t or would you have liked them to be longer so it could have played into your narrative that they didn’t know what they were doing and taking to long? Dreams and reality are two different things, is it possible, yes, is it likely no I don’t think it is. What you have described is the concept of the Illuminati a secret society of elites and billionaires that have the power to control every country in the world. I’ve never said the virus didn’t escape from a lab, that could well be true I genuinely don’t know one way or another. However, I have said the virus was not intentionally realised from a lab to create a one world government by the power of a vaccine passport. No but what is a step too far is that China manufactures a virus, releases it on the world just so Boris can bring in a vaccine passport with the end goal to bring in identity cards via the back door. These identity cards once issued will immediately bring the onset of a one world government somehow. Then Boris and the Chinese government once achieving their goal are now no longer in power and are answerable to this one world government. The virus was either a mistake release from a lab or it jumped from bats not a world wide conspiracy to bring in identity cards.

Well the current PM campaigned for Brexit before he was elected so I took it that he might of wanted it. Regardless of if that was true or not why would he try and give all his power away now he has it regardless of whether he wanted it or not in the first place. I never said they were using a pandemic I said that government try to control the population. Governments do try to do the best for the population by controlling behaviour, by punishing what they see as bad or unhealthy behaviour (fines prison or tax) and rewarding good behaviour. Well they all agreed on vaccination the only disagreement was how to control it until the vaccine was ready. The vaccine was developed very quickly (only the clinical trials which by their very nature take time held it up). You said you were donning your tin foil helmet and talking about a one world government. The tin foil helmet brigade often state the illuminati or lizard overlords as being instigators of this, obviously it was a flippant comment. However, someone must be controlling this drive for a one world government as I have no idea who that would be I used the illuminati lizards as a comedic place holder but will gladly insert a group or name of your choice. You are quite right, but it doesn’t need a pandemic for that, every 5 years we stand the chance of a political landscape that could be completely bonkers and controlling. The erosion of freedom is a problem we both agree on, you can’t be trusted not to eat healthy so there is a sugar tax, you drive to much so a tax on petrol, watch too much porn you have to opt in to a ISP scheme to access adult age restricted material etc. As I said governments try to subjugate. The bit I don’t agree is that the pandemic was manufactured to achieve this end.