Someone let the cat out of the bag…..

[Ffermer Bach]

Shoots a deer, bawls his eyes out over what he's just done, then wants to release wolves to predate the deer. If I was a deer I think I'd prefer to be shot than torn apart by wolves while still alive. A complete idiot this man.

This is all to do with "compassionate conservation" which seems to be the thing at the moment. We seem to be living in an age of emotion & feelings over reason.

It is always a good idea for conservationists to remember, in the Wild, very few animals have a peaceful death, most are eaten alive by others.

Another example of this is the idea that you can't "body shame" or call anyone fat, however, biology and health does not care about feelings, if you are overweight - more likelihood of dying of Covid.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Shoots a deer, bawls his eyes out over what he's just done, then wants to release wolves to predate the deer. If I was a deer I think I'd prefer to be shot than torn apart by wolves while still alive. A complete idiot this man.

What amazes me about Monbiot is that he advocates making "food pills" from factories - getting nutrients from "Somewhere".

Yet he's had Cancer. One of the biggest causes of Cancer being processed food.

I think he must be mentally ill.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

What amazes me about Monbiot is that he advocates making "food pills" from factories - getting nutrients from "Somewhere".

I have to admit that I find it quite amusing. One minute he's ranting about capitalism/investors, the next minute he wants them to feed the world with their patented hyper processed crap.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I have to admit that I find it quite amusing. One minute he's ranting about capitalism/investors, the next minute he wants them to feed the world with their patented hyper processed crap.

Also need to remember that Monbiot comes from the aristocracy in France. He's allegance is with the upper classes.

I feel that the environmental movement is all about moving power back into the hands of the upper classes - this the group which has positioned itself to take power, suppress the working masses, keep and use resources for themselves and make a killing providing "Solutions".

It's a top down upper class bureacracy starting with the United Nations.

 

[Exfarmer]

A Telegraph article I read this morning reminded me of this thread......but from a completely different angle.​

​

​

How we will be ‘nudged’ this winter​

Could the parade of ministers and health advisers urging us to help ‘save Christmas’ be up to their old tricks?

ByLaura Dodsworth21 October 2021 • 5:00am

There’s a chill in the air. Not from the changing seasons – it’s still fairly balmy – but from the latest attempts to orchestrate a subtle psychological manipulation of us all.
About 18 months ago, in the lockdown summer of 2020, I started to argue that the Government’s response to Covid is driven not so much by medical science or epidemiology, but instead by the psychological insights of behavioural scientists. In my book, A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic, I argue that controversial “nudge theory” lies at the heart of Westminster’s response. It refers to sneaky attempts to prime, prepare and prod us into their desired mindset and course of action, without us ever realising we are being coerced.
Some responses to my book seemed naive. Many believed that Downing Street’s approach was genuinely grounded in public health epidemiology. Now, I think the dial is starting to move; the Government’s strategy becomes ever-more clear. Once nudge is seen, it can’t be unseen. Behavioural scientists were dazzling the public with card tricks. This week, the Government may have overplayed its hand.
On Tuesday, Professor Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose modelling was used as the basis for the UK’s lockdown policy, made an illuminating comment on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “Nobody likes having their freedoms curtailed by measures but it’s prudent to be cautious, in everyday interactions certainly,” he told presenter Sarah Smith, “and wearing masks certainly helps that: it reminds people we’re not completely out of the woods yet.”
It was a startling admission, if we needed one, that masks are as much about psychology as they are about preventing infection. They act as a social cue, to use the language of behavioural scientists, nudging us into vigilance.
Then, on Wednesday, after NHS leaders urged the Government to implement its Covid ‘Plan B’ immediately (including the reimplementation of mandatory masks in crowded indoor spaces, and advice to work from home), business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng took to television to herald the “hard-won gains” Britain has eked out of lockdown, adding: “I don’t want to reverse back to a situation where we have lockdowns, I don’t think it’s necessary”. It was a deployment of the sunk-cost fallacy: we’ve come so far, we mustn’t allow our good work to be undone. Until hearing Kwarteng’s words, you mightn’t have known there was even a risk of another lockdown. But now the idea has been seeded in your mind, ever so subtly.
Yesterday, the Health Secretary Sajid Javid gave the first Downing Street briefing in a month – surely a portentous sign in itself… – in which he announced that Covid infections had risen 15 per cent in a week, and warned that cases could hit 100,000 a day this winter.
But, he continued, “if we all play our part, then we can give ourselves the best possible chance in this race… [We can] get through this winter and enjoy Christmas with our loved ones.”
Why is Christmas even in doubt, an alarmed listener might think?
These psychological cues are carefully calibrated, more so than many realise. In a document drawn up by the “Nudge Unit” (known formally as the Behavioural Insights Team, a team seat up by David Cameron in 2010; it is now a private company, but is still one-third owned by the Cabinet Office), scientists examine the success of Slovakia’s mass testing programme, looking at how we could replicate that success in the UK.
“Use empowering messaging,” the document advises. “Motivate people by creating a spirit of national resistance to the virus, highlighting the ability to make a positive action and contribute to the national effort to save lives and livelihoods. Use ‘save Christmas’ messaging.”

Laura Dodsworth: ‘Masks are as much about psychology as they are about preventing infection’ CREDIT: Jeff Gilbert for The Telegraph
The threat of lockdown hangs like a Sword of Damocles. Will we or won’t we? It seems unlikely that the public and businesses could be persuaded again to cancel festivities for a second year. Regardless, the threat of lockdown might be leveraged to justify the introduction of Covid passports, in what is known as a “reciprocation nudge”, in which we appear to be given a concession (the freedom to see our friends and relatives) as long as we roll over and accept a less severe option (in this instance, Covid passports).
It all makes me feel rather like a child: eat your vegetables, kids, or you’ll lose your right to dessert.
It is now becoming clear that Covid passports are a behavioural science tool, too, used to increase vaccine uptake. They are vigorously opposed by MPs and civil liberties groups, and there hasn’t yet been a vote in Parliament. And yet they squat in the Government’s ‘Plan B’ as a mild threat.
There’s more honesty about this north of the border. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, said the passport scheme “will not eradicate transmission completely, but it will help reduce it in some higher-risk settings, and it will maximise protection against serious illness. And we believe – as we have seen already in some other countries – it will help encourage take-up of the vaccine.”
But that strategy may well backfire. A study by academics at Imperial College found that vaccine passports deter a significant minority of people who want autonomy over their bodies. This chimes with research conducted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.
The Government’s Winter Plan contained some welcome news. The most draconian schedules of the Coronavirus Act have been revoked, including the powers to close schools, allow potentially infectious people to be detained, and restrictions on gatherings and events. The times are “challenging”, but it is no longer claimed that Covid is the “biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history”.
But the policy is vague, and the language rife with “nudges”. We will move from Plan A to Plan B if the NHS comes under “unsustainable pressure”. It’s under serious pressure every winter so consider yourselves put on notice.
At this point, Plan B looks inevitable. For Patrick Fagan, a behavioural scientist at Goldsmiths, University of London, it’s a classic example of what he calls the “foot-in-the-door” technique. “Firstly, it makes us accept Plan A, because compared to Plan B, it looks more reasonable,” he told me. “Then, once we have accepted and acclimatised to Plan A, we are more likely to then accept Plan B, because it is just one extra step on top of the commitment we’ve already made.” He also thinks discussion of Plan B might help ministers with the “exposure effect... simply by talking about the measures... the Government makes them more familiar and therefore more psychologically acceptable”.

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson: ‘Nobody likes having their freedoms curtailed by measures but it’s prudent to be cautious’ CREDIT: Imperial College London
Bizarrely, after 18 months, we’re still trapped in a Groundhog Day of modelling and worst-case scenarios. More than a year ago, on September 21, 2020, Prof Chris Whitty and Prof Patrick Vallance warned of infections hitting 50,000 per day by mid-October in their “Shock and Awe” presentation. When the day arrived, the moving average was 16,228. The big numbers both fuel the policies and justify them. It doesn’t matter that there are more optimistic scenarios, or that the modelling has limitations, because the first scary headline sticks in the brain. It’s an example of what behavioural psychologists call “salience” – the tendency of our brain to focus on what is novel and risky.
“Since the beginning of the pandemic, it seems many modelling assumptions, such as the infection fatality rate, have been quite pessimistic,” says Dr Alex De Figueiredo, who conducts statistical analyses for the Vaccine Confidence Project. “I think this has been why many of the predictions – such as hospitalisations and deaths – have been overstated. It also appears there has been little effort to validate forecasts out-of-sample, such as applying the models to Sweden or Florida, who have had far fewer restrictions.”
Never-ending question marks hover over travel, keeping a whole industry adrift. Double-vaccinated travellers will no longer need expensive and inconvenient PCR tests, ministers announced last month. Many will delight in the news, and it sounds sensible on the surface. However, the previously infected do not benefit from the exemption, causing me to question whether this is really a case of “following the science”. Instead, it looks like an incentive, a classic nudge, to encourage jabs. The vaccinated are rewarded and the unvaccinated are punished. Bearing in mind that negative tests and prior infection could suffice; this decision reeks of disdain for personal autonomy.
As we move into November and then the festive season, I wouldn’t be surprised to see ministers on television, urging us to follow restrictions in order or to “save Christmas”, as they did last year. We must be good boys and girls if we want Father Christmas to come. And be aware, right now, the nudgers are drafting our collective New Year’s Resolutions.
As told to Luke Mintz

How we will be ‘nudged’ this winter

Could the parade of ministers and health advisers urging us to help ‘save Christmas’ be up to their old tricks?

www.telegraph.co.uk

What this fails to appreciate is that little things may appear to the man on the street to be pointless. So if you tell him that a certain move, such as washing hands will possibly improve his chances of not catching Covid by 5% then he will think “ what the hell, it is not worth the bother.”
If you tell him wearing a mask will possibly improve his chances by 10% the reaction will be the same.
Even if you can persaude him that it will also decrease his chance of passing it on by 10% again the same.
However what he does not know, is the effect on The long term passage of the disease, it is the R rate , the least understood of all by Joe.
These small moves, wearing masks , keeping your distance, using gel, not touching if possible can reduce the transmission. These things do not mean that we have to shut down if people were sensible. However Joe wants his mates, pub and football, his partner Sharon loves to go out and meet friends , kissy kissy hugs all round.
There kids are out raving given half a chance..
They know that Covid is unlikely to be a big issue to them, and after all none of them has got a cough when they go and visit Nana.
I have just been away for a feww days and stunned how many people are just acting as they always have done when shopping etc. So little effort to put on a mask as we did, drop of hand gel going in shops, what did it cost my enjoyment, nothing, but you can see it in the eyes of some people, a waste of time as they ignore all the signs

 

[DaveGrohl]

A Telegraph article I read this morning reminded me of this thread......but from a completely different angle.​

​

​

How we will be ‘nudged’ this winter​

Could the parade of ministers and health advisers urging us to help ‘save Christmas’ be up to their old tricks?

ByLaura Dodsworth21 October 2021 • 5:00am

There’s a chill in the air. Not from the changing seasons – it’s still fairly balmy – but from the latest attempts to orchestrate a subtle psychological manipulation of us all.
About 18 months ago, in the lockdown summer of 2020, I started to argue that the Government’s response to Covid is driven not so much by medical science or epidemiology, but instead by the psychological insights of behavioural scientists. In my book, A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic, I argue that controversial “nudge theory” lies at the heart of Westminster’s response. It refers to sneaky attempts to prime, prepare and prod us into their desired mindset and course of action, without us ever realising we are being coerced.
Some responses to my book seemed naive. Many believed that Downing Street’s approach was genuinely grounded in public health epidemiology. Now, I think the dial is starting to move; the Government’s strategy becomes ever-more clear. Once nudge is seen, it can’t be unseen. Behavioural scientists were dazzling the public with card tricks. This week, the Government may have overplayed its hand.
On Tuesday, Professor Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist whose modelling was used as the basis for the UK’s lockdown policy, made an illuminating comment on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “Nobody likes having their freedoms curtailed by measures but it’s prudent to be cautious, in everyday interactions certainly,” he told presenter Sarah Smith, “and wearing masks certainly helps that: it reminds people we’re not completely out of the woods yet.”
It was a startling admission, if we needed one, that masks are as much about psychology as they are about preventing infection. They act as a social cue, to use the language of behavioural scientists, nudging us into vigilance.
Then, on Wednesday, after NHS leaders urged the Government to implement its Covid ‘Plan B’ immediately (including the reimplementation of mandatory masks in crowded indoor spaces, and advice to work from home), business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng took to television to herald the “hard-won gains” Britain has eked out of lockdown, adding: “I don’t want to reverse back to a situation where we have lockdowns, I don’t think it’s necessary”. It was a deployment of the sunk-cost fallacy: we’ve come so far, we mustn’t allow our good work to be undone. Until hearing Kwarteng’s words, you mightn’t have known there was even a risk of another lockdown. But now the idea has been seeded in your mind, ever so subtly.
Yesterday, the Health Secretary Sajid Javid gave the first Downing Street briefing in a month – surely a portentous sign in itself… – in which he announced that Covid infections had risen 15 per cent in a week, and warned that cases could hit 100,000 a day this winter.
But, he continued, “if we all play our part, then we can give ourselves the best possible chance in this race… [We can] get through this winter and enjoy Christmas with our loved ones.”
Why is Christmas even in doubt, an alarmed listener might think?
These psychological cues are carefully calibrated, more so than many realise. In a document drawn up by the “Nudge Unit” (known formally as the Behavioural Insights Team, a team seat up by David Cameron in 2010; it is now a private company, but is still one-third owned by the Cabinet Office), scientists examine the success of Slovakia’s mass testing programme, looking at how we could replicate that success in the UK.
“Use empowering messaging,” the document advises. “Motivate people by creating a spirit of national resistance to the virus, highlighting the ability to make a positive action and contribute to the national effort to save lives and livelihoods. Use ‘save Christmas’ messaging.”

Laura Dodsworth: ‘Masks are as much about psychology as they are about preventing infection’ CREDIT: Jeff Gilbert for The Telegraph
The threat of lockdown hangs like a Sword of Damocles. Will we or won’t we? It seems unlikely that the public and businesses could be persuaded again to cancel festivities for a second year. Regardless, the threat of lockdown might be leveraged to justify the introduction of Covid passports, in what is known as a “reciprocation nudge”, in which we appear to be given a concession (the freedom to see our friends and relatives) as long as we roll over and accept a less severe option (in this instance, Covid passports).
It all makes me feel rather like a child: eat your vegetables, kids, or you’ll lose your right to dessert.
It is now becoming clear that Covid passports are a behavioural science tool, too, used to increase vaccine uptake. They are vigorously opposed by MPs and civil liberties groups, and there hasn’t yet been a vote in Parliament. And yet they squat in the Government’s ‘Plan B’ as a mild threat.
There’s more honesty about this north of the border. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, said the passport scheme “will not eradicate transmission completely, but it will help reduce it in some higher-risk settings, and it will maximise protection against serious illness. And we believe – as we have seen already in some other countries – it will help encourage take-up of the vaccine.”
But that strategy may well backfire. A study by academics at Imperial College found that vaccine passports deter a significant minority of people who want autonomy over their bodies. This chimes with research conducted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.
The Government’s Winter Plan contained some welcome news. The most draconian schedules of the Coronavirus Act have been revoked, including the powers to close schools, allow potentially infectious people to be detained, and restrictions on gatherings and events. The times are “challenging”, but it is no longer claimed that Covid is the “biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history”.
But the policy is vague, and the language rife with “nudges”. We will move from Plan A to Plan B if the NHS comes under “unsustainable pressure”. It’s under serious pressure every winter so consider yourselves put on notice.
At this point, Plan B looks inevitable. For Patrick Fagan, a behavioural scientist at Goldsmiths, University of London, it’s a classic example of what he calls the “foot-in-the-door” technique. “Firstly, it makes us accept Plan A, because compared to Plan B, it looks more reasonable,” he told me. “Then, once we have accepted and acclimatised to Plan A, we are more likely to then accept Plan B, because it is just one extra step on top of the commitment we’ve already made.” He also thinks discussion of Plan B might help ministers with the “exposure effect... simply by talking about the measures... the Government makes them more familiar and therefore more psychologically acceptable”.

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson: ‘Nobody likes having their freedoms curtailed by measures but it’s prudent to be cautious’ CREDIT: Imperial College London
Bizarrely, after 18 months, we’re still trapped in a Groundhog Day of modelling and worst-case scenarios. More than a year ago, on September 21, 2020, Prof Chris Whitty and Prof Patrick Vallance warned of infections hitting 50,000 per day by mid-October in their “Shock and Awe” presentation. When the day arrived, the moving average was 16,228. The big numbers both fuel the policies and justify them. It doesn’t matter that there are more optimistic scenarios, or that the modelling has limitations, because the first scary headline sticks in the brain. It’s an example of what behavioural psychologists call “salience” – the tendency of our brain to focus on what is novel and risky.
“Since the beginning of the pandemic, it seems many modelling assumptions, such as the infection fatality rate, have been quite pessimistic,” says Dr Alex De Figueiredo, who conducts statistical analyses for the Vaccine Confidence Project. “I think this has been why many of the predictions – such as hospitalisations and deaths – have been overstated. It also appears there has been little effort to validate forecasts out-of-sample, such as applying the models to Sweden or Florida, who have had far fewer restrictions.”
Never-ending question marks hover over travel, keeping a whole industry adrift. Double-vaccinated travellers will no longer need expensive and inconvenient PCR tests, ministers announced last month. Many will delight in the news, and it sounds sensible on the surface. However, the previously infected do not benefit from the exemption, causing me to question whether this is really a case of “following the science”. Instead, it looks like an incentive, a classic nudge, to encourage jabs. The vaccinated are rewarded and the unvaccinated are punished. Bearing in mind that negative tests and prior infection could suffice; this decision reeks of disdain for personal autonomy.
As we move into November and then the festive season, I wouldn’t be surprised to see ministers on television, urging us to follow restrictions in order or to “save Christmas”, as they did last year. We must be good boys and girls if we want Father Christmas to come. And be aware, right now, the nudgers are drafting our collective New Year’s Resolutions.
As told to Luke Mintz

How we will be ‘nudged’ this winter

Could the parade of ministers and health advisers urging us to help ‘save Christmas’ be up to their old tricks?

www.telegraph.co.uk

Nothing surprising in that article for anyone with half a brain, it's a lot of words to describe what people instinctively understand without having to waffle on to everyone about it. It's the Telegraph, they need words, I get it. They should've put Boris' face on the donkey though......

 

[PS78]

I know plenty of folks who would describe themselves as an 'environmentalist'. Very few, if any, share that view.

Animal rights activists maybe. Vegan fundamentalists certainly. Bosses of global corporations seeing profit in fake meat, most definitely. But environmentalists, no.

Vegan fundamentalists are environmentalists, by extended definition. Vice versa isn't necessarily true.

 

[Vader]

Sat having a bacon butty in Greg's today.
Long que for a good 30 mins I was there.
Not 1 order for vegan.

Vegan mainly in London, Brighton and student areas.
Normal people have a steak bake or bacon butty!

 

[ollie989898]

Judging by the constant stream of cars visiting the local McDonald’s every day
even 8 am on a Sunday morning the anti meat environmentleists are failing completely

because they only meet each other they will never be succesfull at educating the masses

Also when we had panic buying the vegan option were never sold out

the local pubs menu only sports one token vegetarian dish which is never sold out

all the latest studies ( last 10 years ) show that drinking milk and eating butter keeps you alive and healthy for longer

If people are willing to poison themselves and pay for the privilege then more fool them. Our kids don't really like it (or KFC), they sort of eat some of the chips and then leave the rest. Fortunate, as eating this kind of carp would be a recipe for obesity and diabetes by the time they are 10 years old.

 

[ollie989898]

Vegan fundamentalists are environmentalists, by extended definition. Vice versa isn't necessarily true.

That isn't true- you can be a vegan and totally unaware of any environmental issues. I know or have met plenty of people who just don't like the idea of animals being killed or genuinely don't enjoy the taste or texture of meat. They would know nothing about farming or livestock production or the environment in many cases. No one has ever said to me they are vegan because it is better for the planet.

 

[delilah]

Vegan fundamentalists are environmentalists, by extended definition. Vice versa isn't necessarily true.

You only have to look at the AR facebook page to see that that isn't true. Muppets saying that they are going to miss a vegan protest march because they will be on a plane to Ibiza.