The Black Pill

tokeless wrote:…it's a choice to refuse or accept. It you refuse, then you may be excluded from certain things..

What you have described isn’t a choice. It is coercion. It is using threats to gain compliance.

What types of things are people excluded from? Earning a livelihood, being provided medical treatment, being able to buy food, being allowed to travel more than a few kilometers from their home.

That is tyranny tokeless. And it isn’t an idle threat. In some places those measures have been implemented.

It’s like a parent saying to a child, “Eat your vegetables. It is your choice. Accept and you can be part of the family. Refuse and you will be excluded from the dinner table, locked in your room, and will not be allowed to socialize with your brothers and sisters. It’s your choice.”

I hope you agree, that isn’t a choice. It’s an abusive parent.

But, it’s to save the majority from the few you say? That is a different argument. It is justifying the abuse. It is justifying punishing citizens that don’t comply under the notion that it is necessary to save lives.

It is the parent, punishing the child, because they believe the child eating vegetables protects the family. So let’s change the example.

The family is afraid of catching an illness. A medicine is said to protect from the illness. Later, it is discovered it doesn’t stop the illness, just it lessens the symptoms. Regardless, every member, save one takes the medicine. That one member is what threat? All members can still catch and transmit the illness. That one member is not any more of a threat than anyone else in the family.

So the parents begin pushing the narrative that the illness can mutate, but only through the one child that refused the medicine. They tell all the other children to ostracize and treat their sibling as an outcast. At the same time they keep saying, “It’s your choice.”

As the medicine loses effectiveness, year after year new variants occur. That’s what happens with a virus. It happens with the flu. The parents constantly berate and exclude whatever child refuses the medicine, year after year, because they believe if they can just get to 100% obedience they can end this illness. The entire family will be safe, if they can just threaten all of the children into compliance, before the illness mutates.

It’s abuse. It’s tyranny.

That's not what I'm saying Richard. I also didn't say protecting the majority from the few... the facts are, whether we agree with them or not. This virus kills, not everyone but enough for a global plan to be needed to try and reduce the deaths or infection. There is a vaccine available that has some degree of impact on the virus, where it can reduce the severity of the infection for those most at risk, but doesn't prevent transmission per se. Here, in the UK we are offered the vaccine and it is not currently imposed and requires consent. I can only speak from that point of reference. I get offered the vaccine. I can either consent to have it or not. If, in order to reduce the spread the government say if I want to go to a sports arena, festival or other place where there will be thousands of people I need to show proof of the vaccine and I say no, I don't want the vaccine, I am going to have to accept I am excluding myself through my choice. You see coercion and tyranny but I don't. Tyranny is being made to have it. Is isolating tyranny? Or should I be able to go out, knowing I have the virus and possibly infect others because I demand the right to do so? What if I have HIV and want unprotected sex, knowing I will infect others because I don't do unprotected sex because I don't like it. Is that ok? I don't have to tell the sex partner I have it, it's not mandated but I could say I have some sort of responsibility to not infect people... What is your alternative Richard? Freedom to what I want because to not be is to conform to tyranny? When you boarded your flight, did you refuse to answer any questions about covid, testing or other because to answer would be coercion? I'm interested to know what your anti tyranny plan is for this.

tokeless wrote: What is your alternative Richard?

You honestly think the UKs response is better than Sweden? How about Colombia, or the states in the USA that have lifted all mandates?

Almost two years into the pandemic we can see the results of different models in how we respond. It’s not hypothetical anymore tokeless. Sweden didn’t collapse or have to dig mass graves. Neither has Colombia or the state of Texas or Florida.

And these ALTERNATIVES didn’t require the government to threaten, ostracize, exclude, punish, or otherwise coerce citizens to “choose” to take a drug.

Look at the difference in deaths per million citizens:

2,525.51 Colombia
2,245.7 Mexico
2,240.25 USA
2,085.98 UK
1,458.56 Sweden

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... habitants/

You have different responses in each country. Are you seriously going to tell me that vax passports, taking away jobs, access to grocery stores, medical care, is worth the 0.044% lives saved? That’s the difference between Colombia and the UK.

How do you defend the UK response, and continued “choice” they are giving citizens, when the return on all of this might be lower COVID deaths by 0.044%?

And I say might, because you can’t explain away Sweden, just because it is inconvenient.

So yes, I have an alternative to the UK response. I have many alternatives. Pick almost any country you like that doesn’t follow the UK model.

Seriously, let’s discuss. How do you explain away that data?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

tokeless wrote: What is your alternative Richard?

You honestly think the UKs response is better than Sweden? How about Colombia, or the states in the USA that have lifted all mandates?

I haven't said that.

Almost two years into the pandemic we can see the results of different models in how we respond. It’s not hypothetical anymore tokeless. Sweden didn’t collapse or have to dig mass graves. Neither has Colombia or the state of Texas or Florida.

And these ALTERNATIVES didn’t require the government to threaten, ostracize, exclude, punish, or otherwise coerce citizens to “choose” to take a drug.

I haven't been threatened Richard. Currently there are no mandates I am aware of. I go to the supermarket with no masks, passes or other mandates.

Look at the difference in deaths per million citizens:

2,525.51 Colombia
2,245.7 Mexico
2,240.25 USA
2,085.98 UK
1,458.56 Sweden

https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... habitants/

You have different responses in each country. Are you seriously going to tell me that vax passports, taking away jobs, access to grocery stores, medical care, is worth the 0.044% lives saved? That’s the difference between Colombia and the UK.

How do you defend the UK response, and continued “choice” they are giving citizens, when the return on all of this might be lower COVID deaths by 0.044%?

I'm not defending anything, just pointing out people have a choice here currently.

And I say might, because you can’t explain away Sweden, just because it is inconvenient.

I haven't tried to do that Richard.

So yes, I have an alternative to the UK response. I have many alternatives. Pick almost any country you like that doesn’t follow the UK model.

Seriously, let’s discuss. How do you explain away that data?

I'm not explaining away any data. I asked you for YOUR alternative and you've said anything other than the UK model. In practical terms what would you do?

tokeless wrote: In practical terms what would you do?

Are you asking if I was in the role of king for a day, or in the role of citizen being given a “choice” or be banished from society?

As king for a day, in practical terms, I would call my friend Sweden and ask, “How did you do it?”

After 18 months of collecting data and realizing that the difference between strict mandates and no mandates results in a negligible difference in COVID deaths, but a drastic difference in citizen moral, mental health, and economic outcomes, I would apologize to the people. I would admit that we got it wrong and that other countries made better choices.

If your asking what I would do as a citizen, in practical terms I would use whatever methods available to give those in power a “choice”. Do what I want, or be removed from office. In practical terms, this can mean any number of things, up to and including violence. Maybe you are above using violence. I’m not.

In practical terms, this doesn’t mean violence is my first option. It first means being okay with non-compliance, protesting, and other forms of non-violent actions to help those in power to “choose” a different path. But, violence is definitely on the table if those in power do not “choose” correctly.

In practical terms, it is the reverse of those in power giving those not in power a “choice”. Do what those in power say, or suffer the consequences. This happens, until those not in power begin giving those in power a “choice”. This has repeated itself throughout history, in various forms. Sometimes it is non-violent and other times it is absolutely bloody. It is nothing new. No nation, no government, no individual has ever been impervious to having their power stripped from them.

Here’s a brief summary of how Sweden has handled the Covid-19 pandemic.
During Covid-19 in Sweden, the Swedish government has presented many different measures in several areas to fight the coronavirus. Independent expert government agencies make recommendations, the government makes decisions. The decisions have all aimed to:

limit the spread of infection in the country
ensure healthcare resources are available
limit the impact on critical services
mitigate the effects on people and businesses
ease concern, for example by providing information.
Sweden’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been about taking the right measures at the right time, because different measures are effective at different points in time. The country’s response has been partly based on voluntary action. For example, rather than enforce a nationwide lockdown, the authorities have given recommendations: to stay home if you've got symptoms, to keep a distance to others, to avoid public transport if possible, etc.

More official information on the Covid-19 pandemic at krisinformation.se.
For business-related Covid-19 information, go to verksamt.se.
For study-related information, go to migrationsverket.se.
Vaccinations and removal of restrictions
Swedish Covid-19 vaccinations started in December 2020. As of September of 2021 around 76 per cent of the population aged 16 or older had been vaccinated.

Based on the high vaccination levels, but also based on the burden on health services, mortality rates and an assessment of the risk of increased transmission, the Swedish government has decided to remove most of the restrictions put in place to reduce the spread of Covid-19 on 29 September 2021.

According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden (Folkhälsomyndigheten), a high level of vaccine coverage is the most important condition for more restrictions to be removed. The Public Health Agency is continuing to encourage the general public to get vaccinated.

On 29 September 2021 the following happened as the government implemented stage 4 of its plan for removing restrictions:

Restrictions on attendance numbers for public gatherings and events will be removed.
Restrictions on attendance numbers for private gatherings at rented premises, for example, will be removed.
Remaining restrictions on restaurants, including the size of parties and distance between parties, will be removed.
The Public Health Agency’s advice to work from home will be removed and a gradual return to the workplace begin. Anyone with symptoms should continue to stay at home and be tested, and employers should then facilitate working from home.
Certain specific regulations may still be needed for very large public gatherings after 29 September 2021.

Travel restrictions due to Covid-19 in Sweden
There are still some travel restrictions in place:

Foreign nationals – with the exception of those travelling from the Nordic countries – need have an EU Covid certificate, a negative Covid-19 test no more than 72 hours old or a certificate of recovery when travelling to Sweden.
There is a ban on non-essential travel to Sweden directly from countries outside the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area (EEA).
More details about travel restrictions and exemptions at krisinformation.se.

The ability for Sweden to remove most of their restrictions was because they managed to vaccinate 76% of their population. This seems sensible but I guess people have a accepted vaccination is required in order to open up society again. Does this mean they are more passive and conformist in Sweden or that they decided to protect themselves?

tokeless wrote:The ability for Sweden to remove most of their restrictions was because they managed to vaccinate 76% of their population. This seems sensible but I guess people have a accepted vaccination is required in order to open up society again. Does this mean they are more passive and conformist in Sweden or that they decided to protect themselves?

First, what are the vaccination rates of Colombia or Mexico? What’s the vaccination rates of many of the countries that have removed most of their restrictions? Then compare that to the lives saved. Again, the bonus over Colombia was to save 0.044% more lives in the UK. And that’s being gracious. We could use Mexico, where the difference in deaths was 160 per 1 million citizens. That is an impact of 0.016%. That’s the difference all of the mandates, lockdowns, economic drain, and giving people the “choice” to stay employed has made over other the response other countries adopted.

Second, Sweden didn’t need to open up society again, because for the most part they were never closed. All of the restrictions (closures) you listed where never at the scale of the UK. Most of what the government did was recommendations, not mandates.

If you look at the media, they tried to go after Sweden, saying the soft closures and no mandates backfired. It isn’t hard to find all the criticism of their response, the criticism of Sweden remaining mostly open and not mandating vaccines. Yet here we are, and the data is clear. Sweden stayed mostly open and saved more lives than the UK, or Colombia, or Mexico.

But, so what? What was the real difference between a 76% vaccination rate + open society (Sweden) vs a 68% + closed society (UK) vs 50% (Colombia/Mexico) + moderately open?

Between Colombia and Sweden, the difference is 1/10th of 1%, ie 0.1%.

In my opinion, you seem to be fixated on % vaccinated as the panacea, as the single minded solution to save lives. But look at the numbers. Look at the data. Where are my numbers wrong?

Again, all of the vaccinations and all of the restrictions have conferred what bonus exactly to the UK over Colombia or Mexico? Not even a tenth of 1%.

Richard.... I'm just posting about Sweden. I'm not criticising you or trying to point score. Sweden opened up because of their high vaccination rate.. their words, not mine. I'm not obsessed with the %, yet you break it down to prove your point... I am only accountable to me and my decisions. Have my government balls it up yes. Did they do it badly, yes... the rest is whataboutery because not all countries are the same or act the same.

tokeless wrote: Sweden opened up because of their high vaccination rate.. their words, not mine.

And other countries have either remained open or decided to reopen without high vaccination rates. In other words, the idea that a high vaccination rate is required before opening up is not backed by the numbers.

What do the numbers say? That vaccination rates really don’t matter all that much. That whatever response option a given country chose, statistically it didn’t really matter all that much. Vaccinate, don’t vaccinate. Close your country, keep it open. After 18 months that data shows that best case, one country saves 1 tenth of 1% more lives.

I am only accountable to me and my decisions. Have my government balls it up yes. Did they do it badly, yes... the rest is whataboutery because not all countries are the same or act the same.

Yes, you are responsible for your decisions. But you also seem to think it is perfectly fine to exclude people from society for making a “choice” not to get the vaccine. You state this, even though the numbers clearly show the vaccine makes a negligible difference in outcomes, less than a 1/2%.

That’s not whataboutery. It’s hard data. It’s 18 months of data across 100+ different countries. To simply dismiss that data because each country is different, is like saying we don’t know if the vaccine works, because everyone is different. Is the effectiveness of the vaccine whataboutery, because everyone is different, or do we have sufficient data of its effectiveness, because despite individual differences we can use the numbers to draw some really valuable conclusions?

Me, I think we have enough data to calculate the effectiveness of the vaccine, despite individual differences. I’m all for people using that data to make an individual choice, free of coercion, free of threats to lose their job. It’s not whataboutery.

I also think we have enough data to say that vaccination rates don’t make a significant difference in overall mortality. It’s not whataboutery when you have 18 months, with 100+ countries, and thousands of regional comparisons that can be made. The numbers are there.

Richard.. what am I supposed to say about other countries and how they responded to the outbreak? What I remember is that countries such as the USA and Brazil, even the UK didn't react quick enough, they ignored the data and perhaps this was because of political interference. As a result, the virus ripped through and many were infected and deaths rose. The countries that acted quicker and perhaps more aggressively had lower rates of deaths and infections... these however increased over time, perhaps because they relaxed too early, tried to not act like tyrants.. who knows for sure. As for data? Every country used it's own data to justify and explain their response. Russia and even China were suspected as not being open with theirs. Brazil hid their true levels, so I don't always believe what data says because it says what the holder of the data wants. The 'facts' are, Sweden vaccinated over mandated and once they achieved the level of perhaps herd immunity, thus keeping control over the rate of infection, they started to open up again. Again, I'm not saying that Sweden is, with their data. As for thinking it's ok to threaten or coerce others, I'm not sure I said that anywhere, but you seem to think differently. If the UK decided to threaten people to get the vaccine I would write to my MP and complain because I don't agree with that. If they say to do things like watch live football or foreign travel then it comes down to choices because to do either of these things isn't tyranny, just public health

tokeless wrote:Richard.. what am I supposed to say about other countries and how they responded to the outbreak?

How about we both learn from it? That is valuable right?

How do we know whether or not high vaccination rates are super important to save lives? How do we know if lockdowns are worth it? If we only look at our own response, there is no way to know.

Luckily, we have data from 100+ other countries and how they responded. We can see that high vaccination rates don’t make a significant difference. Neither do lockdowns.

What I remember is that countries such as the USA and Brazil, even the UK didn't react quick enough, they ignored the data and perhaps this was because of political interference. As a result, the virus ripped through and many were infected and deaths rose.

I remember this news. I remember it the same as you. But now it is time to ask ourselves, was it true? We now have 18 months of data. We now can look back and see that in countries with reliable data, eg Mexico, Colombia, USA, UK, Sweden, etc. we can see that what we remember doesn’t match the facts. We were wrong.

While both of us remember the virus ripping through and rising death rates, we can now take a step back, and make great comparisons. We can ask, based on the numbers, did any strategy make a significant difference in overall mortality?

Given the numbers, I think the answer is clearly no. We have a range between 2500 to 1500 deaths per million citizens. No strategy had a significant influence on overall mortality. Governments, regardless of strategy made a negligible difference on total lives lost.

As a side note, the numbers are definitive proof the vaccine is no death jab.

As for thinking it's ok to threaten or coerce others, I'm not sure I said that anywhere, but you seem to think differently. If the UK decided to threaten people to get the vaccine I would write to my MP and complain because I don't agree with that. If they say to do things like watch live football or foreign travel then it comes down to choices because to do either of these things isn't tyranny, just public health

I don’t follow your thought process. People that get the vaccine can still spread the virus the same as a person without the vaccine. In other words, it makes no difference if you have a stadium/plane full of any combination of vaccinated/unvaccinated, The vaccine doesn’t stop a vaccinated person from spreading it.

Again, this is what the numbers tell us. College football started in the USA in early September. Stadiums full of tens of thousands of maskless spectators. 40+ states, hundreds of stadiums with a wide range of vaccination rates. Was there any significant difference? Were some stadiums “super spreaders” and others not? Nope. The vaccines made no significant difference in transmission rates. This held true in states with lower rates of vaccinations or higher rates.

So why? In your mind what is the public health reason to exclude a healthy 20 year old because they choose not to take the vaccine?

The option to do nothing because it would make no difference wasn't an option. Imagine arguing that it makes no difference what we do because to vaccinate or not, won't stop the virus spreading. Even those vaccinated can still spread the virus, the data shows this to be true. You just have to trust in the science and take your chance and hope you get lucky.... that's the way forward here, so carry on with your lives. Masks won't do much, vaccines either. Locking down will just make life difficult...
Do you think people would have accepted that approach? Finding out more information later on doesn't make what you did the wrong thing as long as you adjust your plan. In the UK I have always argued it became more about politics than science because that's the type of government we have here right now. Lies come easy, but we had a public health system that does work but they were sidelined for backers of the government. You're right, vaccines aren't a kill shot, but they did something to stop the health services being overwhelmed... maybe that was the only plan? Hide the reality ours is on it's knees because of chronic mismanagement. Doing nothing because it wouldn't make any difference was not an option and hindsight is a great thing. NZ was praised for its response, but it imposed lock down, isolation, masks and other tyranny methods... did it work? At the time, but over time the virus spread because they relaxed the rules because people wanted their freedom again... no problem, but the virus likes freedom. This situation will continue until it herd immunity happens and then it will just become a virus we have to live with, manage as best we can and offer vaccines to those who want them. Doing nothing is not and was never an option. Btw, you never did say whether you conformed in order to get your flight.

tokeless wrote:The option to do nothing because it would make no difference wasn't an option…. Doing nothing is not and was never an option.

I think you misunderstand. Every country did something. No country did nothing. I agree, doing nothing was never an option. Some countries took a softer approach that was temporary and didn’t restrict as many freedoms. Other countries took a harder approach that was more permanent and restricted more freedoms.

I don’t fault any country for their initial approach. We didn’t know. But it’s been 18 months. We now have plenty of hard data, The hard approach doesn’t work any better at reducing overall mortality and there is clear evidence the hard approach is much more damaging. You have more damage to the economy, the mental health of the population, the loss of education, etc. And for what gain? It’s not lives saved, so what else?

I do not mean to imply the lesson we should learn is “do nothing”. I mean the lesson is we look at countries that did something without wrecking their economy, eroding trust in government and public health, creating mental health issues, causing children to lose a year or more of education, etc.

Btw, you never did say whether you conformed in order to get your flight.

A family member served in Vietnam. He told me a story once about a barber shop where soldiers went to get a straight razor shave. One night, a man was killed outside the base trying to sneak onto an airfield and destroy some planes. That man was one of the barbers. Was he a conformist because during the day he didn’t martyr himself?

Take your pick. Read about the American Revolution, the French resistance, the civil rights movement in the USA, the fight against apartheid, etc. Heck, read about the current situation in Israel. That a person might periodically conform to get through a checkpoint, or to not bring attention to themselves, doesn’t mean they are a conformist. It only means they are blending in as to avoid the stupidity of martyrdom. Pick your battles.

theforsaken wrote:I dunno Candid, My missus told me the other day that a few of her workmates are outraged that they can't get their first booster yet, and they're blaming the unvaxxed and people who have only had one shot, tell me how that makes sense?

It absolutely doesn't, except when you know a) we're hardwired to trust authority, b) the truth is massively censored by algorithm, and c) there are people who merely want to believe what they're told because the alternative is too awful.

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Some of us are the down-to-earth Alice, not losing our heads despite the madness going on around us. Others are the Queen, who not only takes pride in self-deception but wants to take others down with her.

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. "Off with his head!" she said, without even looking around.

And that's pretty much what we're seeing. While any sane person accords everyone else free choice as to unproven and unnecessary medical procedures, there are plenty of jabbed people getting nasty with the unjabbed. This from Victoria https://www.rebelnews.com/full_video_ma ... e=therebel doesn't show the choices of a reasonable person, nor of one who's genuinely afraid of a killer virus.

So yeah I think some Aussies really are that stupid. Alot actually, if more people thought like people like us do, or even just thought for themselves for a second, we wouldn't be in this f***in mess.

I know. That's what I've found most distressing all along: all those who by their take-up of pointless masks and anti-social distancing, their enjoyment of furlough or work from home, their wholesale consumption of obvious lies, have dragged us with them every step of the way. Then, to add insult to injury, some of them go on to blame anyone who made a different choice. They are being actively encouraged to do so.

I'll gladly talk to people who haven't yet taken the jab, for my own sake as well as theirs. I also engage with double-jabbed people who made their choice and know mine is different, and we talk about anything other than the coronahoax. There's absolutely no point discussing jab dangers with people who've willingly drunk the Kool-Aid, and those whose company I enjoy are NOT the ones calling for vaxxpasses that would ultimately starve out those of us who value our bodily integrity, and deny us access to medical treatment. (I say would rather than will because I still have hope.)

Further along that continuum, I reluctantly blocked the only person on this thread who took the jab willingly. Seeing UK Government lies parroted here at regular intervals was irritating as well as, obviously, excess to requirements. I know what they're telling us. Everyone does.

theforsaken wrote:If the government actually cares about us not getting sick and being as healthy as can be, why isn't cancer treatment free?

It used to be under the NHS, but last year hospitals and GP surgeries cancelled appointments for cancer tests and treatments. Those things were available only to those who could pay, and many lives were lost among those who couldn't. https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 11430.html

I'm sure you must also have seen at least one video of the many hospital staff from a number of countries who had time to choreograph, rehearse, practise, film and upload their dances to the www. It's rather less likely you know about the UK's several Nightingale hospitals set up specifically for the predicted covid-affected multitudes and equipped at enormous taxpayer expense, only one of which was ever used.

Sometime since the coronahoax started I found my local GP surgery's carpark almost empty. In the 11 years I've been registered as a patient I'd never seen it less than chockers before, and its waiting area standing-room-only. The entrance I've always used was locked. The main one wasn't, but there was no receptionist, just a sandwich board saying no entry except by appointment. There were, however, voices and laughter somewhere along the corridor.

So what was going on? Might it be the lead-up to the end of the NHS (which I grant has always been a costly and wasteful enterprise), with government employees having a laugh while collecting their pay? Because of course it isn't the Government paying them, it's the taxpayer. For all sorts of reasons I'm glad I'm not one of them. I'm also glad I'm not a TV watcher, because in the UK you have to have a licence to own a TV, and paying for government propaganda would seriously stick in my craw.

I never claimed to be a medical expert or a virologist, but I can tell when I'm being f***in bullshitted.

Me neither and me too. It's refreshing to see we're the majority on the forum, and I'm certain our number is much higher in the general population as well. I see it as a bell curve: at the left those who believe it or are handsomely rewarded for saying they believe it, at the right those of us who see it for what it is. There's every gradation across the huge hump in the middle, many of whom appear to be going along with it, whipping out masks and exemption lanyards whenever they're challenged.

Every day more people move closer to the right, while no one at all goes from right to left. Once your mind is open you can't ignore what you know to be true.

It's taking too long is the problem, especially for my Australian friends.