Also Nev and the lads were desperate to "appease" Hitler because they knew exactly what might happen.
(Missed point deleted.)
Anyone who claimed that the First World War wouldn't be over by Christmas 1914 would be far more likely to have been accused of pessimism, since it only required the belief that the Allied Power wouldn't do as well as they expected to. That would hardly propel such a belief into conspiracy theory territory.
Ditto with Hitler and WW2. There was ample evidence of Germany's expansionist ambitions. Hitler telegraphed them himself in Mein Kampf. The anti-Jewish Nuremburg laws were enacted in 1935. Kristallnacht, happened in 1936, as did the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, so there was plenty of reason to belief that Hitler was someone to worry about. And (normal) people were afraid of another war, which they assumed would be a re-run of the first. Why else did the West give in to Hitler for so long before finally saying enough was enough? The shadowy figure behind it all was front-and-centre, unlike conspiracy theorists pet baddies whose guilt is implied with evidence of the nudge-nudge-wink-wink variety and who shrink from providing firm details,
Someone who outlined the progress of the war in 1936 would more likely have been accused of speculating, since they could not have known, for example that the west would finally lose patience with Hitler, that the Japanese would turn their attentions southwards from China and Manchuria, and that FDR (with help from Hitler) would coax the US out of its isolationism. Such a soothsayer's predictions would have been regarded as speculation* and even if proven right would have amounted to a lucky guess.
*Which funnily enough, is what conspiracy theories basic are, just in fancier emperor's clothes.
They wouldn't have been called conspiracy theorists because they were not proposing a conspiracy.
They were merely suggesting a different chain of events, not that Bill Gates was trying to infect everyone with Spanish Flu, or that George Soros was going to command people to blow each other to smithereens all for the purposes of something that nobody would detail.
The First World War was entirely pointless, that doesn't mean that it wasn't known why each stupid step led to the next stupid step though.
jaysus... this thread is still going
I'd say everyone is wetting their pants at these new restrictions .... "I told you so"!!!
Nah... they had to be removed to be re-instated... and will be removed again
I wrote potentially.
“There is no oppression,” say the masked and double jabbed majority, who present their identity papers on command, queue for never ending boosters, limit their contacts and plan for the jabbing of their children against a virus that poses them less risk than the jab.
You've still not shown that the vaccines are higher risk than covid. Just that you don't understand statistics, don't read instructions on medical reporting sites and think that decapitation is a potential outcome from taking the vaccine.
How can he? We are still in testing phase. Medium and long term studies will only be concluded few years from now.
For the very same reason nobody can claim they are safe. It is still too early to say that.
how many u16's have died in Ireland from COVID?
Doctors disagree with you though and you have been shown to be lying about the dangers.
The vaccines are safe.
Anyone who does not get the vaccine based on the false information you're providing is a gullible idiot.
Quite right yes. I forgot that I was answering your question and not still debating permanent vs temporary. Apologies.
We aren't in the "testing phase", vaccines have passed trials.
The mask wearing "sheeple" of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic.
Study finds that countries with mask mandates had lower Covid related mortalities than those without
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(21)00557-2/fulltext
According to this article they do nothing: 30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet – OffGuardian (off-guardian.org)
"At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.
One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.
Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”
There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.
While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed a panel of experts demand it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.
The WHO commissioned their own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For full run down on the bad data in this study click here.]
Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.
For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical case figures, despite one having a mask-mandate and the other not.
In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid “cases” than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019."
I think we can agree that it's all very confusing. Studies say they work, studies say they don't work.
More copy paste from a conspiracy crank website.
You have read none of these studies.
And chances are that if we do they will not actually say what the conspiracy crank website is saying. That keeps happening when you do these link dumps.
Here are two links concerning the same study published on 18/11/2021 in the BMJ, which seems to show a 53% decrease in Covid transmission due to mask wearing https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729 and https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302 (second one is much more detailed)
What do you make of that?
Not sure what to make of it:
Study doesn’t show masks cause 53% drop in Covid risk - Full Fact
Do masks reduce risk of COVID19 by 53%? How about 80%? ⋆ Brownstone Institute
Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review | Cato Institute
But just to link this to the thread topic, I believe the masks will be permanent. And the vaccine passport. Those two in particular. And if you don't then you'll have to back up your belief with evidence. Evidence that they are temporary measures in Ireland. All I see is more and more measures. Vaccine passport required almost everywhere, masks required almost everywhere. And this is with close to 100% of the adult population vaccinated.
"independent fact checkers"... But give us your money
LOL
you CTers can see the wood scam for the trees grifters
ignoring the last 2 because, well, they're a bit biased, the fullfacts.org link does say
That said, wider evidence does support the claim that masks reduce the risk of contracting Covid-19, to some extent.
so even they agree that mask wearing does reduce transmission.
"The Guardian, The Times and Metro have all now corrected their articles"
Evidence that masks will not be permanent... We were not asked to be wearing masks for the last hundred years since the previous massive pandemic.
So now we're believing in fact checkers?!
are you ever actually able to post anything of substance... or is it all cut and paste???
why post the above and not post the ACTAL corrected guardian or times article ??
are you incapable of doing this for some reason?
i mean, its simple to find this stuff... but why cant you ever go and do some actual real searching before looking at "grifting suckers" sites
Wearing a mask appears to be the most effective way for the public to curb coronavirus cases, a study has found.
Global research has found that masks were associated with a 53 per cent lower incidence of infection. The first systematic review of its kind, a meta-analysis published in the BMJ, has found that non-pharmaceutical measures, such as mask-wearing, social distancing and handwashing, are all effective at keeping infection numbers down. The authors stopped short of saying they caused the reduction.
Looks like the frog has been cooked at this stage, it's half baked. Time to change the menu and realize that the conspiracy theorists are onto something. We're all nearly boosted and they're shutting the pub's etc at 5 o'clock so are we a few minutes before midnight ???
So the whole global conspiracy was to force Irish pubs to close early.
Yeah, it's to stop Dionysus varient throughout the festivities. Too much pleasure and making rather merry will drive up the numbers. It doesn't discriminate against whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, it'll find you if you're out enjoying yourself. But all jokes aside king mob, it's a bit strange that we're doing what's suggested and there's going to be more restrictions.
The virus does discriminate against the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The unvaccinated take up a higher percentage of hospital beds in relation to the percentage of population they represent.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5d62a35d50b8dba45150b8451b6cb1b3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
