Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel, The Handmaid's Tale is set in Gilead - which is a not even thinly disguised USA. The company producing Remdesivir is called Gilead.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
But a medicine that used to cost £12 (typically per month), rose to £268, and has now fallen back to about £120, is widely refused to UK NHS patients. Even when they have possibly been taking it for years and are supported by doctors.
(Despite costing only just over a euro in Greece.)
I have no neanderthal in me. But gather the lineage separated half a million years ago from homo heidelbergensis, which I must have. Anyway that's my excuse for not having any sense of direction ag all. If it weren't for sat nav I'd have spent the past fifteen years driving in circles outside that little village near st michel
With it, I was directed down a dead end lane that got so narrow I couldn't turn, open the doors, back (I'm rubbish at backing) ...
Is that the one off Cornwall? Or off Brittany? Or "I don't bloomin' well know where it is. I'm lost, I am."
Government hired 1,114 Deloitte consultants.
do you know how much Deloitte charge the government for test and trace per day?
I rather like this
Coronvirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter
Other listed supporters include Dr Harold Shipman and Dominic Cummings of "Durham Univercity".
And
Roubles Cummin too
Dr Amanda Huggenkiss surely she’s genuine?
Typical tweeted reaction
Ma Simpson's (Chris) #3.5%@ChrisStirk
10m
Replying to @mrjamesob
Well Harold Shipman seems appropriate since they seem to be determined to kill off all the old folk
Richard Sweeny
@R_sweeny
·
14m
Replying to
@mrjamesob
The people have had enough of experts-even fake ones
Coronvirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter
Other listed supporters include Dr Harold Shipman and Dominic Cummings of "Durham Univercity".
And
Roubles Cummin too
Dr Amanda Huggenkiss surely she’s genuine?
Typical tweeted reaction
Ma Simpson's (Chris) #3.5%@ChrisStirk
10m
Replying to @mrjamesob
Well Harold Shipman seems appropriate since they seem to be determined to kill off all the old folk
Richard Sweeny
@R_sweeny
·
14m
Replying to
@mrjamesob
The people have had enough of experts-even fake ones
Remember back in the day - yes I'm talking to you OG (mainly) - when all the Remainers on here (which is almost everybody - well it was at the time) - were going on and on (AND ON) about how Cambridge Analytica AND THE RUSSIANS had 'swung the Brexit vote'. Well - at the time I thought it was ******* - and guess what? Turns out it WAS *******!
Happy days.
Here's the Spectator:
"So there you have it. Cambridge Analytica was ‘not involved’ in the 2016 EU referendum. The digital marketing firm that Remainers love to hate did not swing the British electorate towards Leave, as we were constantly told. In the words of the Guardian, no doubt uttered through gritted teeth, Cambridge Analytica did not ‘directly misuse data to influence the Brexit referendum’.
These are the conclusions of the Information Commissioner’s extensive three-year investigation into Cambridge Analytica. Throwing a big bucket of cold water on the chattering-class belief that Cambridge Analytica stealthily and probably illegally harvested people’s online data in order to manipulate our minds and make us vote Leave, the Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said yesterday that, in truth, CA was not a significant player in the referendum, ‘beyond some initial enquiries’.
What’s more, Denham and her office found no evidence to back up one of the key stories about CA – that it colluded with Russia to shift Brits towards Leave. Denham, in her letter to MPs outlining the findings of her investigation, says her staff uncovered no ‘additional evidence’ of Russian involvement in the referendum on the Cambridge Analytica computer servers they pored over."
Happy days.
Here's the Spectator:
"So there you have it. Cambridge Analytica was ‘not involved’ in the 2016 EU referendum. The digital marketing firm that Remainers love to hate did not swing the British electorate towards Leave, as we were constantly told. In the words of the Guardian, no doubt uttered through gritted teeth, Cambridge Analytica did not ‘directly misuse data to influence the Brexit referendum’.
These are the conclusions of the Information Commissioner’s extensive three-year investigation into Cambridge Analytica. Throwing a big bucket of cold water on the chattering-class belief that Cambridge Analytica stealthily and probably illegally harvested people’s online data in order to manipulate our minds and make us vote Leave, the Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said yesterday that, in truth, CA was not a significant player in the referendum, ‘beyond some initial enquiries’.
What’s more, Denham and her office found no evidence to back up one of the key stories about CA – that it colluded with Russia to shift Brits towards Leave. Denham, in her letter to MPs outlining the findings of her investigation, says her staff uncovered no ‘additional evidence’ of Russian involvement in the referendum on the Cambridge Analytica computer servers they pored over."
Here's the rest:
"Oh dear. It is difficult to recall the last time a theory collapsed so spectacularly. All those stories we were told about Cambridge Analytica — that it virtually puppeteered the electorate, that it was the shadowy force behind Brexit, that it cosied up to the Ruskies — have fallen apart. There is no hard evidence for these wild takes about CA.
Indeed, the Information Commissioner’s Office concludes that CA used online data in a fairly standard way. ‘On examination’, it says, CA’s methods were ‘well-recognised processes using commonly available technology’. That was always one of the most striking things about the anti-CA hysteria of the past four years – it struck many of us that this company was only doing what other political campaigns, including Barack Obama’s, had done, in terms of tapping into online data in order to build up potential audiences for political messages.
Are there questions to be asked about the security of our data on social-media sites? Of course. But the idea that CA was doing something uniquely sinister, that its digital marketing was somehow more evil and dastardly than other companies’ digital marketing, just doesn’t stack up. Neither does the idea that it deployed its sinister methods to swing Brits towards Brexit.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-covid-testing-trap
It is difficult to overstate how central the puffed-up, fact-lite Cambridge Analytica story was to the Brexit-bashing worldview of certain newspapers and campaigners. The Guardian even has a section on its website called ‘The Cambridge Analytica Files’, listing all the pieces it published on this apparently malevolent, Brexit-orchestrating organisation. CA whistleblowers were fawned over by liberal campaigners and the Twitterati.
The Observer, one of the most enthusiastic promoters of the borderline conspiracy theory that Brexit is the handiwork of nefarious data-mining companies and shady Russian elements, published pieces claiming that a ‘shadowy global operation’ involving CA and others ‘influenced the result of the EU referendum’. Oh really?
There always was a whiff of desperation to the Cambridge Analytica obsession. For some bruised, dazed liberals, horrified by Brexit, the tall tale about CA’s Machiavellian antics became the go-to explanation for why Remain lost the referendum. It couldn’t possibly be that millions of rational Brits, more than capable of thinking for ourselves, decided that it was time to leave the EU. No, something darker must have taken place. We must have been brainwashed. We must have been ‘got at’. Our data and our minds must have been mined by massive companies and possibly even Russian bots, telling us ‘VOTE LEAVE’.
It was a deeply patronising view, depicting the electorate as putty-minded fools and calling into question the legitimacy of the largest act of free and fair democracy in the history of this country. That was always the twisted irony of the CA obsession: the anti-Brexit lobby told us that CA was harming democracy, but in truth it was their own ridiculing of the British electorate and efforts to criminalise the vote for Brexit that threatened to damage democracy in this country."
"Oh dear. It is difficult to recall the last time a theory collapsed so spectacularly. All those stories we were told about Cambridge Analytica — that it virtually puppeteered the electorate, that it was the shadowy force behind Brexit, that it cosied up to the Ruskies — have fallen apart. There is no hard evidence for these wild takes about CA.
Indeed, the Information Commissioner’s Office concludes that CA used online data in a fairly standard way. ‘On examination’, it says, CA’s methods were ‘well-recognised processes using commonly available technology’. That was always one of the most striking things about the anti-CA hysteria of the past four years – it struck many of us that this company was only doing what other political campaigns, including Barack Obama’s, had done, in terms of tapping into online data in order to build up potential audiences for political messages.
Are there questions to be asked about the security of our data on social-media sites? Of course. But the idea that CA was doing something uniquely sinister, that its digital marketing was somehow more evil and dastardly than other companies’ digital marketing, just doesn’t stack up. Neither does the idea that it deployed its sinister methods to swing Brits towards Brexit.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-covid-testing-trap
It is difficult to overstate how central the puffed-up, fact-lite Cambridge Analytica story was to the Brexit-bashing worldview of certain newspapers and campaigners. The Guardian even has a section on its website called ‘The Cambridge Analytica Files’, listing all the pieces it published on this apparently malevolent, Brexit-orchestrating organisation. CA whistleblowers were fawned over by liberal campaigners and the Twitterati.
The Observer, one of the most enthusiastic promoters of the borderline conspiracy theory that Brexit is the handiwork of nefarious data-mining companies and shady Russian elements, published pieces claiming that a ‘shadowy global operation’ involving CA and others ‘influenced the result of the EU referendum’. Oh really?
There always was a whiff of desperation to the Cambridge Analytica obsession. For some bruised, dazed liberals, horrified by Brexit, the tall tale about CA’s Machiavellian antics became the go-to explanation for why Remain lost the referendum. It couldn’t possibly be that millions of rational Brits, more than capable of thinking for ourselves, decided that it was time to leave the EU. No, something darker must have taken place. We must have been brainwashed. We must have been ‘got at’. Our data and our minds must have been mined by massive companies and possibly even Russian bots, telling us ‘VOTE LEAVE’.
It was a deeply patronising view, depicting the electorate as putty-minded fools and calling into question the legitimacy of the largest act of free and fair democracy in the history of this country. That was always the twisted irony of the CA obsession: the anti-Brexit lobby told us that CA was harming democracy, but in truth it was their own ridiculing of the British electorate and efforts to criminalise the vote for Brexit that threatened to damage democracy in this country."
Absolutely, the British electorate were not putty minded fools manipulated by Cambridge Analytica.
As I knew, they were just fools with poor judgement, and they still are.
A poll has just been held in several countries asking the public how many have died from Covid-19. In Britain those polled thought on average it was 7% of the population, around 100 times what it really is.
.
What that goes to show ,only is that numeracy skills are lacking ..as in counting one, two three , four five, lots , many . A football stadium full, millions
That’s a very reasonable assumption. What’s your complaint?
Pubs / restaurants could be moderately safe places to visit if the owners were more responsible. The reality is that they are putting virtually no safety measures in place.
This could be solved without curfews or “circuit breaks”. Just shut, for 12 weeks, any found to not have in place a set of clearly defined set of parameters. No furlough, support loans or subsidies.
Spot checks would be easy to perform.
This could be solved without curfews or “circuit breaks”. Just shut, for 12 weeks, any found to not have in place a set of clearly defined set of parameters. No furlough, support loans or subsidies.
Spot checks would be easy to perform.
In fact it may be generous. Heard some bbc interviews with voters in bolton who thought boris was "doing a reasonable job with the pandemic"
Last edited:
At this level of error across a random selection of the population by professional pollsters, more implications than just the simplest of numeracy skills missing.
.
Further evidence of my theory concerning the Coronavirus infection map being identical to a stupidity map, if such a thing were to exist.
We're a brainy lot us Brits, I believe I mentioned on here once before during the Falklands conflict the news media stopped people in the street and asked them where they thought the Islands were. Some said off the coast of Scotland others near the Isle of Wight
I blame the British shipping forecast, reading out all those funny names each day.We're a brainy lot us Brits, I believe I mentioned on here once before during the Falklands conflict the news media stopped people in the street and asked them where they thought the Islands were. Some said off the coast of Scotland others near the Isle of Wight
.
Fair Isles, Faroes, East Finistere .. ah happy days listening to the shipping forecast while falling slowly