IOM Covid removing restrictions

[momo65]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:12 PM, quilp said:

Besides that momo, what are your thoughts on, had the so-called 'fear factor' not been so publicly propagated could outcomes have possibly been worse? Was the push perhaps a necessary evil to get the population to sit up and listen?

I can see the logic. Covid the bogeyman at the door, an'that. The mass-psychological effect of putting a collective, existential fear of the bogeyman into populations has worked its magic countless times historically, whether it be the threat of the hun, 'reds-under-the-bed', Jews, Islamist terrorism et al. The level of fear induced will be comparative to the level of compliance.

What say ye..? 

Whilst that is plausible. Nothing I've seen suggests it. No doctor treating Covid patients has ever said that this is blown out of proportion. 

[momo65]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:01 PM, TheTeapot said:

If you turn off your javascript (your adblocker can do this or your browser settings) the telegraph paywall goes away.

Anyway, you know what it's about. It's behavioral scientists doing bad things.

Don't have java script running and do have ad blocker but still there. Without sight of the source documents that Telegraph is presumably quoting I'm not in a position to comment. It's about as reliable as the Dailly Mail but only more divisive so without corroboration if the Telegraph said the sea is wet I'd be dubious. 

[TheTeapot]

7 hours ago, momo65 said:

Don't have java script running and do have ad blocker but still there. Without sight of the source documents that Telegraph is presumably quoting I'm not in a position to comment. It's about as reliable as the Dailly Mail but only more divisive so without corroboration if the Telegraph said the sea is wet I'd be dubious. 

Im not a huge fan of the telegraph either, and some of their coronavirus coverage, especially in the earlier phase of the pandemic was appalling.

The article in questions was about advice given to SAGE by the spi-b committee.

 

On an entirely different subject I note that the guardian are reporting that the virus doesn't do bad things to your brain, as claimed by many alarmists.

[kevster]

10 hours ago, momo65 said:

Don't have java script running and do have ad blocker but still there. Without sight of the source documents that Telegraph is presumably quoting I'm not in a position to comment. It's about as reliable as the Dailly Mail but only more divisive so without corroboration if the Telegraph said the sea is wet I'd be dubious. 

The article:

Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.

Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”

Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.

Ministers have faced repeated accusations that they ramped up the threat from the pandemic to justify lockdowns and coerce the public into abiding by them – a claim that will be examined by the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic response.

SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.

One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.

“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”

Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”

One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.

Another said: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”

As well as overt warnings about the danger of the virus, the Government has been accused of feeding the public a non-stop diet of bad news, such as deaths and hospitalisations, without ever putting the figures in context with news of how many people have recovered, or whether daily death tolls are above or below seasonal averages.

Another member of SPI-B said they were "stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology" during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.

Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: “If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.

“If we’re being really honest, do I fear that Government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.”

[Andy Onchan]

51 minutes ago, kevster said:

The article:

Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.

Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”

Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.

Ministers have faced repeated accusations that they ramped up the threat from the pandemic to justify lockdowns and coerce the public into abiding by them – a claim that will be examined by the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic response.

SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.

One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.

“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”

Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”

One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.

Another said: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”

As well as overt warnings about the danger of the virus, the Government has been accused of feeding the public a non-stop diet of bad news, such as deaths and hospitalisations, without ever putting the figures in context with news of how many people have recovered, or whether daily death tolls are above or below seasonal averages.

Another member of SPI-B said they were "stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology" during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.

Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: “If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.

“If we’re being really honest, do I fear that Government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.”

The thing with the fear factor is that they would probably only get away with it once. Next time around the public may not be so obliging.

[hissingsid]

Three more dead

 

[Nom de plume]

50 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Three more dead

 

Vaxed? Underlying health conditions? Age?

There are lots and lots of people dying everyday sadly of lots and lots of things.

[James Blonde]

Unless they are going to start publishing the total mortality figures for every death on the island, then it's hard to hold these figures in any kind of context. 

[Itsmeee]

3 hours ago, kevster said:

The article:

Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.

Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”

Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.

Ministers have faced repeated accusations that they ramped up the threat from the pandemic to justify lockdowns and coerce the public into abiding by them – a claim that will be examined by the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic response.

SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.

One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.

“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”

Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”

One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.

Another said: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”

As well as overt warnings about the danger of the virus, the Government has been accused of feeding the public a non-stop diet of bad news, such as deaths and hospitalisations, without ever putting the figures in context with news of how many people have recovered, or whether daily death tolls are above or below seasonal averages.

Another member of SPI-B said they were "stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology" during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.

Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: “If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.

“If we’re being really honest, do I fear that Government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.”

Wow. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, James Blonde said:

Unless they are going to start publishing the total mortality figures for every death on the island, then it's hard to hold these figures in any kind of context. 

That is literally what they do.  Here's the latest graph:

This based on death registrations, which don't always happen straight away, so there will almost certainly be more deaths added in future weeks for this period, especially in October.  For example the Covid death on 12 October only appeared this week.

[Ramseyboi]

Whoop.

Must be near the end of this nonsense now?

https://bbc.in/2ZOhV5l?fbclid=IwAR3NIA6uiFJ6FJ9EN1h3S_du_NnHUEG86BG5IfZR3aH6x6sWPXF1HeczIpQ

[Ramseyboi]

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That is literally what they do.  Here's the latest graph:

This based on death registrations, which don't always happen straight away, so there will almost certainly be more deaths added in future weeks for this period, especially in October.  For example the Covid death on 12 October only appeared this week.

That graph is no use whatsoever  for what James asked for.  It also gives no idea of ages or other conditions.

In fact, it tells us pretty much nothing 

[Max Power]

21 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

That is literally what they do.  Here's the latest graph:

This based on death registrations, which don't always happen straight away, so there will almost certainly be more deaths added in future weeks for this period, especially in October.  For example the Covid death on 12 October only appeared this week.

I do know of a couple of people who have died but they are not included in the figures, they died over 28 days following a diagnosis.

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I do know of a couple of people who have died but they are not included in the figures, they died over 28 days following a diagnosis.

They should be included in these figures if their death was registered up to last week.  If they died of Covid and it appeared on their death certificate they will be shown in orange, otherwise blue.

The Isle of Man has never used the 28 day rule, which we know underestimates deaths for the reason you suggest, despite the belief that it does the opposite.

[Max Power]

6 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

They should be included in these figures if their death was registered up to last week.  If they died of Covid and it appeared on their death certificate they will be shown in orange, otherwise blue.

The Isle of Man has never used the 28 day rule, which we know underestimates deaths for the reason you suggest, despite the belief that it does the opposite.

It's strange Roger, one chap, mid 40s died earlier this year after two months in ICU and there was no announcement of him as a statistic? His family were told that although he was admitted with Covid, displayed all the symptoms, he eventually died of non Covid related causes, brought on by Covid?