Like @Wessa, I can't comment knowledgeably on any particular event but I think there are two problems with your assertion. One is in the generalisation. BLM protesters are mostly peaceful, if loud. 'Climate alarmists', assuming you're referring to the more extreme activists, are only a tiny proportion of people who accept there is a problem, and putting a qualification of Muslims in brackets suggests a statement with a wider complaint. The other one is an observation that the covid-19 protesters are potentially going to catch and spread the virus further than their own group. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to protest but perhaps they could agree to self isolate afterwards. I wouldn't dispute your second paragraph; we may not have the best strategy for the virus at the moment and I certainly don't think someone raising legitimate questions should be labelled as anything but a concerned citizen.
That's not what it says. The trial had 38,995 participants who either received the vaccine or a placebo. There have been 94 confirmed cases from that group. The sub-group who received the vaccine had 90% fewer symptomatic coronavirus cases. These are early results that haven't been peer reviewed. There is more work to do but a phase 3 trial is a conventional, required part of the process for approval. There's more here: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/...-results-from-phase-3-covid-19-vaccine-trial/
If forum members count as people you know then I'm in your minority - I've been working from home since March.
The qualification was to a specific recent event, that occurred during Covid restrictions, as did the BLM and climate alarmist protests. Nothing further was implied which was why I specifically qualified that event. As regards to the policing both Cresida Dick and Sadiq Khan have both been quizzed by other members of the London Assembly with regard to the obvious and recorded double standards of policing of a number of events. And to say the BLM protests are peaceful is laughable, have you already forgotten the destruction caused in Bristol, London (inc the cenotaph), Sterling, etc where the police did nothing, and then the following week veterans stood around the Winston Churchill monument to prevent it being damaged and were set about by the police in riot gear! The police seem to be deliberately provocative towards one side, whilst taking the knee and standing back for the other.
I'm not saying there aren't people in large protests who cause damage but they're not the majority and it's unfair to suggest that the whole group is at fault, for any group. We all know the media focus on those incidents, which is disproportionate reporting.
Which is why all the ballyhoo now is propaganda. It is still early doors. The clue is in the ‘media centre’ announcement and quite cautious approach taken by clinicians as to its significance.
Other than missing the pubs, cafes and our Cornish shed, life goes on as normal in the Marky household. Still biking, swimming, padleboarding and walking. The roads i feel are quieter than pre lockdown 1 but nowhere near as quite as spring.
That's misleading. Just because it says 'media' doesn't mean it's biased or wrong. The link is to a number of quotes by various professors and doctors. I delivertaly didn't post a news article, not even the one in New Scientist. I think everyone is eager for some positive news and the Pfizer announcement is potentially that. Ministerial soundbites and political gaming aside, the facts are easy to find on the current situation.
What is misleading is to suggest it is just round the corner when full scale testing needs another 6-8 months but the political narrative needs jam tomorrow to overwrite cock up all summer.
Exactly. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/pfizers-ceo-dumps-60-his-stock-covid-vaccine-announcement Now what does he know that we don’t?
Meanwhile lockdown and vaccination provides a figleaf for Johnson, Whitty and Co who are fast running out of active disease in the population. The Liverpool antigen test basically found no active cases but we have continuing hospital acquired infections. Stable doors and bolting horses come to mind......but gotta keep fear levels up or there is nowhere to hide.
No, you don't have to justify it as essential travel. The law makes no reference to "essential travel". Steve didn't need the Tesco bag. Anyway, since when has Tesco been cool?
The law doesn't say anything about the travel part. It just says that one item in a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses to be outside your home is "to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation". It also defines "any highway to which the public has access" as a public outdoor place. It also doesn't restrict you to being with only one other person, but that's not important right now. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/contents
