Snap. And beat me to it because I started with the paper and the article author rather than the medical misinformation
Meanwhile here's Shabby Shapps entry for the silly season awards. "The lunatics are in the hall" https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-plates-proposal-a-strange-and-pointless-idea
Totally impractical but, as someone who was a regular walker on Southampton Common, it is time something was done to protect pedestrians from those arseholes that approach you, at high speed and then pass you with less space than that they demand from motorists who pass them on the roads. Especially when they approach from behind you. Being reliant on hearing aids, I don’t always know when a bike is approaching me, from behind, and the risk of being ploughed into increases when there are poorly controlled dogs running at you, causing you to take evasive action. I’m going to fall off my soapbox if not careful, but if I did the injuries would be nothing compared to being run over by a cyclist. Especially for those of more mature years.
Similar problems here where some of the combined bike and footpaths are regarded as race tracks by the cycling clubs where pedestrians and slower moving bikers are expected to give way. There was also some confrontation with delivery riders on e-bikes speeding along footpaths and mixed use paths. An informal chat with the interested parties led to more responsible behaviour. The bikes are being fished out of the canal.
Also, Naomi Wolf's doctorate is in English Literature. Referring to her as "Dr. Naomi Wolf" is both factually accurate but also intentionally misleading. Probably worth noting that her publisher also pulled a book she had written, after it became clear that the entire premise of the book owed to a misunderstanding on her part: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50153743
Just because you don’t like the author, doesn’t change the data. Read the Pfizer paper instead of believing your liberal fact checkers. The data is there, I saw it myself. How you choose to interpret the data is up to the individual. Which is my whole point. Anyway I am bored of talking about covid now. Can we insult boris again?
Nothing to do with not liking the author. Just pointing out the massive bias for both the author of the article and the person who crowd sourced the study. If you can claim without evidence that the fact checkers are biased due to being “liberal” then I can claim WITH evidence that the sources are biased And this is without going near the actual topic - it is just simple things to consider when you see information from news sources. Ones that you seem to apply to “liberal” sources but not other ones (with all the comments about not trusting the media) And you restarted the covid conversation didn’t you? The posts before were all about bashing Tory policies (rumoured or otherwise) and potential Tory leaders
The Naomi Wolf interpretation along with the Steve Bannon and presumably yours has been widely debunked and disproved across the board by numerous studies. Liberal fact checkers are in fact well respected scientific and medical authorities Wolff, Bannon Malone et al are the lunatic fringe Q ****ing anon. By the way Johnson is a ****, always has been always will be. As are those that have aided and supported his regime.
Good idea, and while he's at it throw in some road tax as well. Make the lawless ****ers pay their way.
Third party insurance, not expensive as here in the Netherlands, would be a good move. Getting people out of cars, walking or biking in a responsible manner has to be the way forward. A reliable and affordable public transport systems is far to much to expect under the current regime or anything that may follow without big measure of electoral reform.
Can you provide a link to that data please? I must say, for someone who claims not to trust the press, quoting Will Witt's Florida Standard is laced with so much irony my eyes are bleeding.
It sounds like the data comes from a study that is crowdfunded by an anti vaxx woman with no medical background. So even if there is data there is no reason to assume the study was conducted with the appropriate vigour robustness
it comes from a 3600 page .pdf that Pfizer were forced to release Unfortunately the data that the court made them released has been dumped in a way that makes it hard to decipher and extrapolate meaningful conclusions. But personally I think that there is enough in it to warrant caution about coercing people to take it. Like I said, I am not a Q anon lunatic. I’m a person that has seen the damage these things can do with my own eyes, and I believe in freedom to choose. Anyway that really is enough from me on this subject now. I know I won’t change anyone’s mind.
Making cyclists more responsible would be useful but Shapps knows it's never going to happen. He's either out of touch with reality or playing to the anti cycle crowd. Is the insurance requirement compulsory in The Netherlands? If it is how is it enforced?
Not compulsory but widely used, people are held responsible, as they should be, for the damage they cause. whether they can pay for it is another matter.
Os, seriously - do you not see how "But personally I think" and "hard to decipher and extrapolate" is somewhat different to "people on here owe me an apology" and a certainty that's come from a complete mis-extrapolation from a widely derided and at the very least HUGELY biased source. Do you honestly, truly believe that if 44% of pregnant women had genuinely lost their babies after taking the vaccine, that there might not be someone slightly more reputable than the Florida Standard raising a few questions about it??? And you're relying on the extrapolation of data by believing someone completely unqualified to read data, and with a incredibly strong bias...reporting on Steve Bannon's podcast! I mean, seriously. You are brighter than that.
As posted earlier re the data and its interpretation. https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...gnancy-outcomes-contrary-to-claim-naomi-wolf/
