• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

Double whammy hits 5G roll out.

New Minister for Communications Eamon Ryan has been warned that “ill-informed concerns” and conspiracy theories may hamper the roll-out of 5G infrastructure in the State.

In a briefing document drawn up by officials, he is also warned that the spread of Covid-19 will impact on the delivery of the National Broadband Plan. The first fibre to the home connection is expected to be made towards the end of the year, but the document says Covid-19 has already “impacted the delivery” because contractors are having difficulties getting access to buildings such as schools and GAA centres – as well as to islands. There are issues with deliveries of required supplies from overseas because of the pandemic and the crisis has also affected the design process as well as other operational matters, according to the document. There are also issues in relation to the availability of accommodation for contractors across Ireland and concerns over the recruitment of personnel.

Mr Ryan’s department is also planning a new communications campaign to tackle “ill-founded” Covid-19 conspiracy claims. The conspiracy theory that 5G masts are somehow linked to the spread of Covid-19 began to gain momentum online in early January after posts began to link the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan with the installation of 5G masts. The conspiracy alleges, among other things, that Covid-19 has either been caused by the frequencies used for the new technology, or that those signals impair the human immune system. The briefing says there has been “an increased public focus on possible health impacts of 5G technology, including a number of county councils passing motions opposing roll-out of 5G infrastructure.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/conspiracy-theories-may-hamper-roll-out-of-5g-1.4325024
 
Only half of Britons would have the Covid-19 vaccination because they believe in conspiracy theories and don't think they'll get sick:
Full story

This misconception is especially common among the 16-34 group. Well, it was nice knowing you...
There have been problems experienced by early adopters of vaccinations in the past, so it pays to wait and see how it turns out - if that option is available to us.
 
There have been problems experienced by early adopters of vaccinations in the past, so it pays to wait and see how it turns out - if that option is available to us.
Given how devastating this disease has been to, well pretty much everything, that doesn't really apply in this case.
 
Only half of Britons would have the Covid-19 vaccination because they believe in conspiracy theories and don't think they'll get sick:
Full story

This misconception is especially common among the 16-34 group. Well, it was nice knowing you...

Some will disagree with me which is fair enough, but I must admit this annoys the hell out of me. I know a woman who says she wouldn't have a coronavirus vaccine because she wants to get pregnant in the near future and is worried whether the vaccine might affect her fertility. She cites being concerned that it will be rushed out in comparison to other vaccines and may be unsafe. In terms of it being 'rushed out', to some extent I understand the concern. However, the idea that any vaccine is completely safe or even particularly effective because it has been in development for years is nonsense. You take vaccines on a balance of personal risk, and for the good of society to an extent (although I doubt many see it that way).

Also, we still don't know the effects of coronavirus long term, and it's becoming apparent that there may be a multitude of lingering complications for some people. Who's to say young people won't experience negative side effects in the future, or what may happen if the virus is given time to mutate? Plus, why not actually find out how a vaccine has been designed, developed, and indeed how it works, before deciding whether you want to take it? I can't help but think that if coronavirus disproportionately affected 'the young', there would be significant difference in attitudes. I'll get off my soap box now...

Re. What we're seeing in America with those who refuse to wear face masks because it 'prohibits their personal freedom and liberties', I'm tempted to say that's a form of natural selection in action. :rolleyes:
 
The Hong Kong government is now offering free Corona testing: conspiracy minded sceptics fear us a DNA collection program on behalf of the Chinese government.
 
Please forgive my not checking and reading this topic/thread but I honestly do not have the physical and emotional strength to go through 54 pages to see if this has already been posted. If it is already posted please feel free to delete it or I think if I am contacted fast enough, I can delete it myself. thanks.


 
What I have noticed in the last few weeks is that when I go out I come back
with a slightly irritated throat, I don't tend to suffer from imagination and
have asked quite a few people I know and all except one have had the same,
so if it is real and not imagination/autosuggestion, do you get the same?
I suspect it's all the antibacterial wash people are splashing about but only
guessing, what do you think? just in the mind?
 
Van Morrison dismisses social distancing as "pseudo-science" and calls on fellow musicians to break the rules:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/aug/25/van-morrison-blasts-covid-gig-limits-pseudoscience
Always bemused when completely unqualified people publicize what they think feel. I don't give a hairy rat's behind about musicians/designers/writers/politicians who pontificate about any question involving professional competence outside their field of expertise. I also don't care about what they feel about anything unless they are commenting as part of their professional activities (ie, singing). I should alert Mr M by the way that the active and miserably unemployed stagehands who regularly post on their group fb page care a whole lot, and don't want him anywhere near them.
 
The slogan back in the 1980s for AIDS prevention was "Don't die of ignorance", which was on ads that were far less blatant about what they were about than all the official coronavirus advice. Maybe we should dust off the "ignorance" slogan, all these folk who think they know better wouldn't like to be exposed as idiots, after all.
 
The slogan back in the 1980s for AIDS prevention was "Don't die of ignorance", which was on ads that were far less blatant about what they were about than all the official coronavirus advice. Maybe we should dust off the "ignorance" slogan, all these folk who think they know better wouldn't like to be exposed as idiots, after all.

A lot of false information about AIDS was spread by our professional leaders back then. Don't get me started on all the nonsense they used to publish regarding cannabis.

Oh, and lest we forget the professional advice from our governments regarding the nuclear bomb. Fucking morons were setting off distructive bombs like that and telling us to hide under a newspaper for protection.
 
What I have noticed in the last few weeks is that when I go out I come back
with a slightly irritated throat, I don't tend to suffer from imagination and
have asked quite a few people I know and all except one have had the same,
so if it is real and not imagination/autosuggestion, do you get the same?
I suspect it's all the antibacterial wash people are splashing about but only
guessing, what do you think? just in the mind?
Yes,I have definitely noticed that. I haven’t asked anyone else if they have experienced it but I will do now.
 
Frankly, the only reticence I have about a touted anti-Covid 19 vaccine is encapsulated by the following three points:

1) Does it work? Really? I mean the most recent report of a 'repeat' victim may (if true) indicate that, like 'flu, you can vaccinate one particular type of virus but it mayn't work against another ... or at all.
2) The desperate scramble to develop a vaccine means a slackening of oversight. I mean, not scientifically but politically. Whichever national government(s) declare "they've found a vaccine!" will benefit from their home politics and international standing. So there is pressure put on research/production bodies by their respective governments. It's a race to be the first, not to reduce death but to gain political kudos.
3) Whoever develops the effective vaccine isn't doing it out of the benefit to humanity. They aren't in it for 'the greater good'. ("the greater good!") They have spend gazillions* of dollars in the race to find this thing, even if it's existence is not guaranteed. So, the bigger the take-up, the more money they recoup.

If I were offered a vaccine against Covid-19, I'd consider these three things:
a) Has it been proven to work?
b) Has it been proven to be safe?
c) Who gets paid for it, and who pays for it?

But, and I stress this point, if I were offered a vaccine (even annual) that answers these questions then, yes - of course I'd take it.

* It's a recognised amount. Honest. Trump's been told he has that much a following.**
** As they said in the 80's: "Oh, a bit of political satire there, mustn't let it upset them who don't get it.***"
*** Ben Elton. Good in the day but, apart from his books, didn't realise that political satirical comedy - like 'Spitting Image' - really does quickly go out of date.
 
Last edited:
If constant re-infection means that we all have to be vaccinated every few months, somebody is going to make an awful lot of money.
Follow the money...
 
If constant re-infection means that we all have to be vaccinated every few months, somebody is going to make an awful lot of money.
Follow the money...

image.jpg
 
Seen a few conspiracy theories sprouting up about this new virus. Mostly about underreported numbers of infected/dead, but also the expected "It was made in a government lab!", e.g.

View attachment 22732
I wouldn't rule it out, although it's more likely that Covid-19 escaped due to the Chinese researchers not adhering to laboratory protocol. In the USA, labs work with extreme treats like Ebola using incorporated regulated safety measures. Comes right from my wife who's in the field.
 
I wouldn't rule it out, although it's more likely that Covid-19 escaped due to the Chinese researchers not adhering to laboratory protocol. In the USA, labs work with extreme treats like Ebola using incorporated regulated safety measures. Comes right from my wife who's in the field.

You'd like to think the same protocols are observed in China but who knows?
 
A lot of false information about AIDS was spread by our professional leaders back then.

Maybe in North America, but in Britain the government recognised how serious the matter was and made the advice as clear as possible. They were just a bit late too save many lives, but they did get their act together.
 
If constant re-infection means that we all have to be vaccinated every few months, somebody is going to make an awful lot of money.
Follow the money...
Good point. However ...
Who earns the money from annual influenza vaccines? Do they work? And just because you (as a profit-making vaccine production firm) earn money from it, should the vaccine not be taken?
Profiteering is a plausible outcome but not a reason for denial.
 
Good point. However ...
Who earns the money from annual influenza vaccines? Do they work? And just because you (as a profit-making vaccine production firm) earn money from it, should the vaccine not be taken?
Profiteering is a plausible outcome but not a reason for denial.
We, the taxpayers, pay for it.
The vaccines are manufactured and sold by large corporations. Wealthy people (and some pension funds) have shares in those corporations.
Middlemen (i.e. doctors and the various levels of people who sell the vaccines to health authorities) will all get some profit out of it, although perhaps not on the same scale as the shareholders and company directors.
So somebody will make a profit from our disaster. It's a bit like the saying about war - 'war is good for business'.
 
The tax-payers pay for it ... I didn't ask that question. Where does that payment go? The vaccine costs money to make (I'm not denying the profits available with 'creative accounting') and it's possible some influential doctors get a 'cut of the action', I agree, but just because profiteering happens (in past and present history and I agree that this is a bad thing) does the fact that someone is profiteering from a medicine mean we should refuse it?
Question it, yes! Pressure for disclosure, definitely! But deny yourself - and others - of potential benefit on ethical grounds? Nice in theory but a choice for oneself rather than imposed on others.
But - in a hyperbolic example - you tell a heroin addict that the dealer is making shitloads of money from their own suffering so they should 'just not take it' and you'd get plenty of ... ah ... robust comments, many far stronger than "tell me I don't know he makes profit from my weakness ... and you want me to stop, 'cause it's that easy? Really?"
To use your own example:
War is good for business. It kills people, sure, but we also employ people to make the weapons of war. A lot of people, a lot of money. We can, however, agree that war is incredibly bad. But it's easy saying "war is bad so don't do it!" and recognising that reality doesn't work like that, as much as we'd wish it. To quote you - "So somebody will make a profit from our disaster." Yes. Yes, they will. I don't like it, most good people would not like it. But just wishing something away doesn't make it so.
Sadly.
 
Last edited:
The tax-payers pay for it ... I didn't ask that question. Where does that payment go? The vaccine costs money to make (I'm not denying the profits available with 'creative accounting') and it's possible some influential doctors get a 'cut of the action', I agree, but just because profiteering happens (in past and present history) and I agree that this is a bad thing, does the fact that someone is profiteering from a medicine mean we should refuse it?
No. However, we do need to exercise caution. Some vaccines may be safer than others, some are more effective than others, some are more expensive, etc.
Also, the ideal would be a vaccine that didn't need to be repeatedly topped up.
Our government has bought vastly more doses than it might need and it has shopped around among the various competing vaccines that are being developed. Quite rightly so, because nobody knows which vaccine will be the 'magic bullet'.
 
Sorry, Myth, but I edited my post while you responded to mine. I think we're both in agreement on general points.
 
No. However, we do need to exercise caution. Some vaccines may be safer than others, some are more effective than others, some are more expensive, etc.
Also, the ideal would be a vaccine that didn't need to be repeatedly topped up.
Our government has bought vastly more doses than it might need and it has shopped around among the various competing vaccines that are being developed. Quite rightly so, because nobody knows which vaccine will be the 'magic bullet'.

1) This desperate drive to find a vaccine worries me because of the potential for corners to be cut.
2) It may be 'ideal' for a one-shot vaccine but from what we're told of this viruses behaviour, it's unlikely. It's far nastier than first assumed and each day experts are discovering new stuff about it.
3) Our government is currently really good at spending money it hasn't got. It spends on publicity rather than reality. It promises then relies on others to make those promises come true. It's spread it's buying power not on proven or even potentially effective products but anyone who has given them a neat-sounding prospectus. In effect, they've paid for a vaccine that doesn't exist and, if it does, may not actually work. All in the name of "We're doing all we can! And, when the vaccine is reality, we're first in the queue."

There may be a 'magic bullet' vaccine but spending money on any just on the off-chance it might be the one doesn't sound sensible.
 
Good point. However ...
Who earns the money from annual influenza vaccines? Do they work? And just because you (as a profit-making vaccine production firm) earn money from it, should the vaccine not be taken?
Profiteering is a plausible outcome but not a reason for denial.

Who's to say where the line is between making a profit & profiteering? If there's no profit it doesn't happen in the first place.

Re the annual influenza virus, I'm assuming the government place an order for so many million shots before winter every year. Profit for that must go mainly to the drug company. The cost per shot I have no idea. Do they work? - It's claimed they reduce your likelihood of getting flu by various percentages. 60% - 40% is mentioned but that's in the younger/healthier age range. The older you are the less effective it is. It's claimed to reduce hospitalisation for flu & pneumonia by various percentages for older people. So whilst it costs us as taxpayers for vaccinations, if it reduces the need for hospital treatment plus saves some lives it's the cheaper option.
 
Back
Top