Has anyone noticed Covid spikes after gatherings

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Cannonfodder said:

Going to a pub or nightclub to get pissed is a choice, whereas living in care usually isn't. 

 

True. But what's the relevance to the policies?

 

If the infection control argument holds for care home staff (reduce few-to-many transmission), why apply the opposite policy to nightclubs?

 

There's a argument that vaccine passports were introduced more to nudge/coerce younger people into getting vaccinated, not primarily for infection control.  But if that's the case, why did Queen Nicola just shut down the nightclub industry for three weeks, thereby removing that incentive, and fairly inevitably shifting socialising to house parties or ad hoc raves without any "Papers, please" gatekeeping.

 

To be clear, I'm not expecting answers here, just scratching my head while trying to find consistency in the apparently arbitrary reasoning.  It's rather hard to Trust The Experts when there appears to be scant evidence or explanation behind such contradictory actions (or knee jerk reactions).

[colinjallen]

23 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

True. But what's the relevance to the policies?

 

If the infection control argument holds for care home staff (reduce few-to-many transmission), why apply the opposite policy to nightclubs?

 

There's a argument that vaccine passports were introduced more to nudge/coerce younger people into getting vaccinated, not primarily for infection control.  But if that's the case, why did Queen Nicola just shut down the nightclub industry for three weeks, thereby removing that incentive, and fairly inevitably shifting socialising to house parties or ad hoc raves without any "Papers, please" gatekeeping.

 

To be clear, I'm not expecting answers here, just scratching my head while trying to find consistency in the apparently arbitrary reasoning.  It's rather hard to Trust The Experts when there appears to be scant evidence or explanation behind such contradictory actions (or knee jerk reactions).

Simple answer: politicians who are trying to balance public safety, minimising the damage to the economy, keeping various pressure groups happy, maintaining or improving their chances of getting re-elected and trying not to get deposed by their own party.

 

I am sure there are more complicated answers.

 

 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

7 hours ago, colinjallen said:

Simple answer: politicians who are trying to balance [what is perceived as] public safety, minimising the damage to the [finance sector of the] economy, keeping various [insider] pressure groups happy, maintaining or improving their chances of getting re-elected [by maintaining the fiction that tax and spend actually happens, and that this is being managed responsibly]and trying not to get deposed by their own party.

 

I am sure there are more complicated answers.

 

 

I think that Guy Debord got there before you.  

[colinjallen]

5 minutes ago, Tactical Pith Helmet said:

I think that Guy Debord got there before you.  

I am not quite convinced that it can be viewed entirely through a situationalist lens, possibly because I have never been convinced by the concept of "the spectacle".

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

I think that we have moved a way beyond the situationism of the 1960's into a plainly consistent denial of the quantitative, as announced by those who announce the quantitative itself, to an audience plainly experiencing the contrary. 

 

We are simply a further 50 or so years into the construction of fictions and the accumulated unspoken inconsistencies that that state engenders, aided by new technologies.

 

You may disagree, but I would be interested in your response to my edits to your interesting post.   

[colinjallen]

10 hours ago, Tactical Pith Helmet said:

I think that we have moved a way beyond the situationism of the 1960's into a plainly consistent denial of the quantitative, as announced by those who announce the quantitative itself, to an audience plainly experiencing the contrary. 

 

We are simply a further 50 or so years into the construction of fictions and the accumulated unspoken inconsistencies that that state engenders, aided by new technologies.

 

You may disagree, but I would be interested in your response to my edits to your interesting post.   

While I would agree that governments and special interest groups create "fictions and accumulated unspoken inconsistencies" that suit their own needs, with Brexit possibly being the most impressive of these in recent UK history, I am not convinced that there has been "a plainly consistent denial of the quantitative, as announced by those who announce the quantitative itself, to an audience plainly experiencing the contrary", at least with regard to COVID-19.

I think that one of the problems with such an assertion is that "the audience" only experience what they experience, which is narrow and limited; another, when directed at the pandemic, is that "the quantitative" is, of necessity, historic, rather than being current or an entirely reliable guide to the future.   People, even (or perhaps especially) experts, will interpret that data according to their own specialism and training; for example, public health specialists will generally err on the side of actions that they perceive as protecting public health.

Regarding your edits:

[what is perceived as]: Perceived by who?  Would letting the virus at its height (or what was hopefully its height) rip through an unvaccinated population have been better for public safety?  In the purest sense, we can never "know" that.

[finance sector of the]: Disagree; all the sectors that are either of "interest" to members of the government and those who fund them or which are perceived as being essential to maintaining the support of their voter base.  However, the finance sector may well be the most significant of the former.

[insider]: Yes, especially the back benches, which the current government seemed to think it could take for granted.  We now see the wonderful spectacle of the potential successors to the fornicator-in-chief being told what to do by the 1922 Committee and others in order to gain their support.  Essentially, UK government policy on the pandemic is now being formed by a group of backbenchers.

[by maintaining the fiction that tax and spend actually happens, and that this is being managed responsibly]: tax and spend does happen, so that part is far from being a fiction.  Is it managed responsibly?  That is arguable with individual answers probably being dependent on one's political and economic viewpoints.

Edited December 28, 2021 by colinjallen

[SBoardley]

Egg pig staircase footlocker, um, civilisations uh skatepark… just my five cents. 

[colinjallen]

18 minutes ago, SBoardley said:

Egg pig staircase footlocker, um, civilisations uh skatepark… just my five cents. 

Thanks; very helpful.

[SBoardley]

11 minutes ago, colinjallen said:

Thanks; very helpful.

Hey; if like your head up your arse, I will leave it there next time. Was just trying to help mate. 

[colinjallen]

26 minutes ago, SBoardley said:

Hey; if like your head up your arse, I will leave it there next time. Was just trying to help mate. 

Did someone piss in your Cheerios?

[SBoardley]

Ooooh. Not sounding so clever now are you?

[colinjallen]

21 minutes ago, SBoardley said:

Ooooh. Not sounding so clever now are you?

Keep trying.

[SBoardley]

9 minutes ago, colinjallen said:

Keep trying.

Mate….my work here is done. 😎

[Rogerborg]

My primary problem with how this has been handled is the benign lie for the greater good.

 

Do we all recall when we were advised by the State broadcaster against wearing face masks because "the virus isn't floating around in the air"[*]?  This came as a surprise to anyone reading contemporaneous studies clearly warning about airborne transmission - that's when I invested in respirators.

 

Then it became tacitly acknowledged that the initial no-mask message from the WHO, and loyally echoed by UK government and media - but not by the US CDC and NIH - was intended to preserve respirators and medical grade surgical masks for frontline health workers.

 

Right at that point, I lost trust in the (collective) State, because it showed no trust in us.  We could have been told the honest truth, but they chose a different way, of "nudging" us into the desired behaviour.

 

When the advice changed, and later became mask mandates, it wasn't that the science changed, it was simply a case of timing the message to keep supply and demand balanced.

 

[*]

WHO, BBC: March 2020 no masks, "the virus isn't floating around in the air".

 

NIH: April 2020 airborne transmission reported, masks recommended (and see the earlier reports cited there)

 

CDC: April 2020 masks recommended, but not ones intended for medical use (see box 1).

 

WHO, BBC: July 2020 maybe we should rethink masks

 

After that, why trust anything that you're being told by any particular talking head on your Telescreen?

 

There's a difference between being informed, and being instructed.

[ImTriggerHappy]

43 minutes ago, SBoardley said:

Ooooh. Not sounding so clever now are you?

 

Neither are you

 

11 minutes ago, SBoardley said:

Mate….my work here is done. 😎

 

Guess you work in porn then as that is the main place that you find such big c**ts

[Cannonfodder]

Tbh the way people went nuts over toilet roll and petrol I'm not sure I blame them

[SBoardley]

2 minutes ago, ImTriggerHappy said:

 

Neither are you

 

 

Guess you work in porn then as that is the main place that you find such big c**ts

Oh dear, you came back. 

[Rogerborg]

A gentle reminder that if you actually think someone on the internets isn't worth arguing with, you can remedy that with a couple of clicks.

[colinjallen]

2 hours ago, SBoardley said:

Mate….my work here is done. 😎

Bye then.

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by colinjallen

[Adolf Hamster]

32 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

A gentle reminder that if you actually think someone on the internets isn't worth arguing with, you can remedy that with a couple of clicks.

 

yeah but clicking is so much effort, even easier to just not read whatever it is you don't like reading.

[colinjallen]

2 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

My primary problem with how this has been handled is the benign lie for the greater good.

 

Do we all recall when we were advised by the State broadcaster against wearing face masks because "the virus isn't floating around in the air"[*]?  This came as a surprise to anyone reading contemporaneous studies clearly warning about airborne transmission - that's when I invested in respirators.

 

Then it became tacitly acknowledged that the initial no-mask message from the WHO, and loyally echoed by UK government and media - but not by the US CDC and NIH - was intended to preserve respirators and medical grade surgical masks for frontline health workers.

 

Right at that point, I lost trust in the (collective) State, because it showed no trust in us.  We could have been told the honest truth, but they chose a different way, of "nudging" us into the desired behaviour.

 

When the advice changed, and later became mask mandates, it wasn't that the science changed, it was simply a case of timing the message to keep supply and demand balanced.

 

[*]

WHO, BBC: March 2020 no masks, "the virus isn't floating around in the air".

 

NIH: April 2020 airborne transmission reported, masks recommended (and see the earlier reports cited there)

 

CDC: April 2020 masks recommended, but not ones intended for medical use (see box 1).

 

WHO, BBC: July 2020 maybe we should rethink masks

 

After that, why trust anything that you're being told by any particular talking head on your Telescreen?

 

There's a difference between being informed, and being instructed.

Yes, that is all very true; I should probably have added "dealing with the logistics of providing a very large amount of equipment at extremely short notice" in my list of things that the government was trying to balance, along with "maintaining public morale".

While it was clearly what you rather nicely describe as a benign lie for the common good, I hate to think what the public reaction would have been if the message had been that masks are essential in reducing infection but we don't have enough and need to provide them to frontline healthcare workers, so good luck.  I suspect that the political calculation involved the possible impact on getting re-elected.

[Cannonfodder]

56 minutes ago, colinjallen said:

I hate to think what the public reaction would have been if the message had been that masks are essential in reducing infection but we don't have enough and need to provide them to frontline healthcare workers, so good luck

This. Considering people have been caught stealing ppe from GP surgeries, hospitals and ambulances a message like that would cause chaos. 

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s-news/employee-jailed-stealing-ppe-nhs-18295924

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/18356320.coronavirus-patient-steals-ppe-north-shoebury-surgery/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-52206749

 

3 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

Right at that point, I lost trust in the (collective) State, because it showed no trust in us.  We could have been told the honest truth, but they chose a different way, of "nudging" us into the desired behaviour.

So the government told a lie to the people? Next up, an exclusive on where bears shit 😁 

I'm more pissed off with them for not being able to follow their own rules as it can make people think "if they don't bother why should I?" mentality. Although it does blow a big hole in the conspiracy theories, I mean how are they supposed to keep so many scientists and medical personnel from blowing the whistle when they can't even keep a Christmas piss up secret? 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Cannonfodder

[Rogerborg]

4 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

This. Considering people have been caught stealing ppe from GP surgeries, hospitals and ambulances a message like that would cause chaos. 

 

We'll never know now, although given the toilet paper hoarding that occurred as well, I suspect that you may be right that we can't be trusted to do the right thing.

 

I'm not actually disagreeing with the use of propaganda, by the way.  That "viral" (i.e. nudged) video of a tearful and slightly milfy nurse begging people to stop panic buying was pretty effective.

 

4 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

So the government told a lie to the people?

 

I'm not surprised by it.

 

What I am doing is documenting a specific example, and suggesting that we shouldn't let ourselves get fooled twice, let alone over and over and over again for years.

 

It's disheartening that so many people are still putting unquestioning faith in whatever we are being being told by strangers who view us, and - as you say - their own diktats, with such utter contempt.

 

Even if they're collectively right that we're little more than instinctual animals who need to be herded, shouldn't we as individuals strive to be better than their bestial assumptions?  Do our own research, and make up our own minds, rather than following the orders of people who don't follow them, and who we claim to not trust?

 

That... doesn't seem particularly rational, or replete with moral integrity.

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

16 hours ago, colinjallen said:

While I would agree that governments and special interest groups create "fictions and accumulated unspoken inconsistencies" that suit their own needs, with Brexit possibly being the most impressive of these in recent UK history, I am not convinced that there has been "a plainly consistent denial of the quantitative, as announced by those who announce the quantitative itself, to an audience plainly experiencing the contrary", at least with regard to COVID-19.

 

I agree in part Colin, regarding C19, but the "fictions and accumulated unspoken inconsistencies" are supplied as much by all of us as by govt.s or defined interest groups.  We are in, and of it, not spectators.  

I think that one of the problems with such an assertion is that "the audience" only experience what they experience, which is narrow and limited; another, when directed at the pandemic, is that "the quantitative" is, of necessity, historic, rather than being current or an entirely reliable guide to the future.   People, even (or perhaps especially) experts, will interpret that data according to their own specialism and training; for example, public health specialists will generally err on the side of actions that they perceive as protecting public health.

 

Wages as a share of GDP have reduced for years whilst prices for consumer durables and luxuries have declined.  Prices for essentials such as housing are far greater.  Yet there is a popular assertion in attitude surveys that we are 'better off than previously,' the quantitative is denied by, not an audience, but those who are the unwilling subjects taking part in the show itself.  

 

I thoroughly agree your comments re:  interpretation of data!

Regarding your edits:

[what is perceived as]: Perceived by who?  Would letting the virus at its height (or what was hopefully its height) rip through an unvaccinated population have been better for public safety?  In the purest sense, we can never "know" that.

 

Perceived by all of us, regarding all.  apologies for the lack of clarity, this was not a comment on C19, but in general.

[finance sector of the]: Disagree; all the sectors that are either of "interest" to members of the government and those who fund them or which are perceived as being essential to maintaining the support of their voter base.  However, the finance sector may well be the most significant of the former.

 

True, but that base lives in the same circus ring dancing to the same whip.  What is essential is mediated not just by the external but those internalised modes of logic not merely intrinsic but instrumental.  

[insider]: Yes, especially the back benches, which the current government seemed to think it could take for granted.  We now see the wonderful spectacle of the potential successors to the fornicator-in-chief being told what to do by the 1922 Committee and others in order to gain their support.  Essentially, UK government policy on the pandemic is now being formed by a group of backbenchers.

 

I'd love to see you replace Laura Kuenssberg with those turns of phrase.  Again it's different personal aims within an intrinsic set of beliefs from each sector of each accumulated epoch, at play.   

[by maintaining the fiction that tax and spend actually happens, and that this is being managed responsibly]: tax and spend does happen, so that part is far from being a fiction.  Is it managed responsibly?  That is arguable with individual answers probably being dependent on one's political and economic viewpoints.

 

Taxing happens, spending happens, but one does not govern the other, neither do the finances of a state resemble those of a household, a tax rise does not equate to a rise in taxes, publicly allocated money does not have less velocity etc.  These are the type of myths I should have for clarity exampled perhaps.  

 

Agree your last point for certain, but again we are back with the dismissal of the quantitative.  The dismissal of the material of life usually according to, in this instance, following a 'sides' of the system derived from the interaction of subject and object within the instrumental logic of itself.  

 

Thanks for the answers Colin.  

 

[colinjallen]

10 hours ago, Tactical Pith Helmet said:

 

Constructing fictions and accumulated unspoken inconsistencies is what humans do; we create our own versions of events and our needs according to our own perceptions, biases, interpretations, needs, culture, whatever in order to support our inner narrative.  That is reflected in your point that, at least until very recently, we generally regard ourselves as never having been better off despite the spiralling cost of both rented and owned housing, which is putting the possibility of owning their own home beyond the capability of many people.  It is also intrinsic to how political and other organisations appeal to people; if they can understand what people feel is of value to them, whether materially, in terms of their self-perception and with regard to their perception of the world external to them, they can get their support, whether in terms of votes or donations to a cause.

I take your point on tax and spend now that you have expanded on it.  Taxation is a curious tool in that it can have unforeseen impacts on revenue; the same does apply to a large extent to government spending where the impact is often not what was expected.  However, I am not quite convinced that the finances of a state do not resemble those of a household, at least not in all cases given how many households are funded by virtually unrepayable debt.  This could, of course, lead into an interesting discussion about fiat money and whether it really is credit money or whether there is no real difference between the two.