The Guardian deserves a nomination, again. The Lancet recently published a study by the WHO into the 2 metre social distancing rule, and unlike the Mail, who put a positive spin on it, the Guardian opted to do a bit of scaremongering. Whereas the Mail headline is “One Metre Is Enough”, followed by “it cuts risk of catching virus by 80%”. Actually it’s 82%, but I’m not going to argue. The Guardian has gone with “Cutting back to 1 metre doubles infection risk”. Two different takes on the same study.
As things stand, the UK is one of only two European countries that are still enforcing the 2 metre rule. France has cut it to one metre, Germany has compromised and gone with 1.5 metres. At the moment, being 2 metres away from another person not from the same household means that your chances of not catching the kung flu are about 91%, whereas cutting it to 1 metre gives you an 82% chance of not catching it. Now, obviously, I’m no expert on these matters, but I would say that even at one meter, the chances of catching this virus are still very low. I like those odds. It would mean that pubs could reopen, and hairdressers and barbers. And here’s something else to consider, most of us have had to go into stores where, despite one way systems and social distancing, we’ve had to walk past people in the aisles at less than two metres. Have any of us caught Kung Flu by doing that? I haven’t.
So why the fuck are the Guardian trying to panic people into demanding that something that, by all accounts was an arbitrary figure anyway stay in place? Because they’re left wing cunts, that’s why.
Nominated by Quick Draw McGraw
QDM then came back for a second helping…
The Guardian needs another nomination. Don’t you just love it when karma hits lefties in the face with a sledgehammer? Guido is reporting on the hypocrisy of the Guardian celebrating the removal of statues of men who died two hundred years ago, because they were involved in even the most tenuous way to the slave (which was assisted by black Africans, who profited greatly from the sale into slavery of other black Africans they had captured in battle. Funny how that NEVER gets mentioned).
It turns out that back in the day, when it was known as the Manchester Guardian, the paper was a fervent supporter of the Confederacy during the American civil war. And they were vehemently opposed to Abraham Lincoln. On the 10th October 1862, the Guardian wrote of Lincoln’s election as President;
“it was an evil day both for America and the world when he was chosen President of the United States”
On hearing the news of Lincoln’s assassination, they wrote that his time as President was “abhorrent”. I guess the modern day employees of that rag either don’t know the history of the Guardian, or they’ve employed the age old lefty trick of conveniently ignoring the fact that their distant predecessors were supporting a regime that actively participated in slavery, in the hope that nobody will find out. Well, someone has. Those lefties at 90 York Way had better hope that Antifa and BLM don’t find out. Be a real shame if their offices were besieged. No amount of knee bending will help them.
Polygamy
