No hit is acceptable unless it generates more than it loses. I doubt whether the Farage incident did anything positive for their bottom line, the way it worked out.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

More likely lost some from those who aren’t, although I doubt it actually made too much direct difference. The hit was to its reputation with institutional decision makers which has a longer term impact.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Good luck with that!

Rare complications are known to exist with most treatments. That’s never the issue. It’s whether the likely benefits outweigh the possible risks.

Do you wear a seat belt in a car? Or do you decide not to because they can, rarely, cause an injury in an accident?

When they were first introduced there was a lot of push back because they were thought dangerous by the uninformed. Not now. Most accept they are beneficial.

There are parallels with the vaccines.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What a ridiculous comparison.

I never took these vaccines and I fall into a few of the risk categories yet I caught covid once that I know of and haven't been unwell since. Fit as a fiddle.

But apparently I'm behaving like I'm driving without a seatbelt.

Do does driving without a seatbelt mean that you have a ninety nine point something chance of surviving a crash? I doubt it.

If someone was young and healthy then in the vast majority of cases they never needed a vaccine in the first place and locking them down was madness (the first lockdown can be forgiven). Lockdowns were a disastrous ineffective hammer that unborn generations and us now have to pay for.

There will be justice, once a new generation of elites come in who aren't affected by that justice.....until then we have to put up with these post hoc justifications for what they did.

History won't be kind because that incoming generation and elites will resent the financial conditions the lip tremblers imposed on them.

I'll also make the point that one of the reasons I personally had for not taking these vaccine...though there were several....was the fact that it had been developed within a year.....I considered that one of the reasons that it was only suitable for those at most risk.

However, a certain poster who frequents this forum, stated that not only was this vaccine not new (a half truth) but that it was safe.

Now we read him....once again....making excuses for investigations that highlight that risks were a factor (considering the companies couldn't be sued that should have been obvious).

As I and others maintained throughout the pandemic.....No one should have been pressured, let alone punished for whether or not they took a jab.

It should also be remembered that this particular poster wanted people punished for not taking a vaccine....and spread misinformation about the non vaccinated.

Dr Campbell on the High Court case and others to come.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Nov 2023 7.07am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

How and when we should use lockdowns if a similar event occurs again is something we hopefully will have a better understanding about, once the enquiry is complete.

We didn’t know much when the decisions were being taken, and we don’t know now. That’s why we are having an enquiry.

That though doesn’t stop know it alls pontificating about their favourite theories as if they are fact, often stating the obvious as though that proves anything at all.

We know they were costly. We know there will be issues going forward that have to be dealt with. What we don’t know is whether things would be better, or worse, had we taken another route, because we didn’t, so have no experience. All we have is theory.

We decided,, on the best science available and in our own circumstances, to do what we did. In a very unorganised way, as is now being revealed.

Once decided it was all our duty, whatever reservation we might have to abide by the law and regulations. I don’t think we were tough enough in requiring people to comply and allowed the misinformation and conspiracy theorists far too much oxygen for the good of us all. Freedom of expression is fine, but if we are all in a sinking boat we all need to bail and not complain that there is a chance you might fall over when doing so.

Of course people needed to be pressured, as well as persuaded. This was a crisis, not a time for prevarication or personal reluctance.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Why is so important that everyone believed in the reasons for lockdown?
Surely it's enough that they abided by the strictures imposed -unlike Johnson, Sunak, Ferguson, Cummings and dozens of Downing Street staff?