Asian Coronavirus Outbreak

[J Livermore]

And btw, .there is no pandemic the clue is in the numbers. You need to stop calling it that.

cantagril is right. I checked three dictionaries and all of them said pandemic refers to how widespread a disease is. Not its killing power or lack of.

 

[cantagril]

In my book it's a fraud. And I'm now joined by 1000's of medical experts in saying that.

Just to be clear - your understanding is that there is:-

a) No virus and that that the whole thing is a hoax?
b) A small number of real cases with the rest of the reported ones being hoax?

Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

Not being a fan of either MS or Social media, I do my own research and tend to be sceptical of most things, including sceptics. This makes me mostly an empiricist and I therefore tend to rely on sources that I know to be reliable which tends to filter the numbers of real people down to friends and family who have real experience and expertise in any given subject.

Depending on how you look at it, I'm either fortunate or unfortunate in having "sources"** dotted about all over the place (France,Germany,Sweden,Australia,India,USA) some of whom are variously doctors, researchers or involved in government in some capacity. A couple of others (actually just one now) actually had the virus - whether real or unreal. Lastly, there's my own personal experience - I've had really bad pneumonia and I know exactly what that feels and looks like and how that is handled in ICU with all the attendant protocols. I also had a friend succumb to pneumonia some ten years ago so I'm able to say both how it looks when you're dying and how it feels when you nearly do.....and then there's this pesky hoaxy coviddy nonsense - I didn't see my brother-in-law dying or breathe his last as everybody was kept well away from him once he was hospitalised; however, my sister who did survive, saw him fall ill and was with him when he went into hospital shortly before she herself became seriously ill. Everything that I have seen myself and heard from my sister et al makes me think that this is virus is real and also very widespread.

As I have said before: it isn't flu nor is it the plague to end all plagues but in my book it makes just as much sense to call Corona virus a hoax as it does Mers, Sars, Swineflu or Ebola or any of the historic bubonic/pneumonic plagues. Again, as I have said in the past, like most people who care to examine what they really feel, I do not really care very much whether anybody I don't know lives or dies. People die every day and as the saying goes "It's what we do" being part and parcel of the human condition. What I do care about is watching people who believe that there is no virus and are statistically probably immune or asymptomatic ignore precautions (masks, distancing) when in public and then get in the faces of people I do care about.... and in case I've left any doubt I place myself fairly near the top of that fairly short list.

So, believe what you want. Take your risks whether real or imagined. . Put the lives of your friends and family at stake. Die if you want. As I am to you, you're just a name on a forum. I do not care whether you live or die and I'm sure that you wouldn't shed a tear if you heard that I'd fallen off my perch for whatever reason.

All that said, I wish you no ill and would even go as far as to say in parting:

Be Well



**Some of those sources tested positive despite zero symptoms and some had what they thought was a cough/cold of varying severity.

 

[timsk]

. . .People die every day and as the saying goes "It's what we do" being part and parcel of the human condition. What I do care about is watching people who believe that there is no virus and are statistically probably immune or asymptomatic ignore precautions (masks, distancing) when in public and then get in the faces of people I do care about....

Hi cant',
A clear post with your points well made - as is the norm from you. ;-)

The only bit that I have any real issue with is the section I've quoted. I accept entirely that many people buy into the mainstream narrative (polls indicate circa 70% of the population) - and hold the view that you outline here. Needless to say, I don't! Indeed, I'm afraid I think it's totally unreasonable on the grounds that it shifts the onus of responsibility onto others, such that individuals are relinquished from taking any responsibility for themselves. This is completely ar$e about face IMO and in no small measure underpins a lot of what's wrong with society today. If you want to wear a mask and you want to social distance and you would rather not not mix with others or go to crowded Christmas markets etc., - that's your prerogative. I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever; just don't tell me that I can't do it! If David, c_v, new_trader and I all decide to meet up for a Christmas knees up, don't wear masks, don't social distance and embrace one another (no tongues, mind), infect one another and, potentially, kill one another, then that's the risk we have all decided to take. It's our responsibility - not yours. We should be allowed to do it: you have no right to dictate how we live our lives, no no matter how crazy and irresponsible you belive our actions to be.
Tim.

 

[Pat494]

From the latest figures it seems Sweden's much vaunted virus plan is a complete disaster with infections higher than other European countries.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[timsk]

From the latest figures it seems Sweden's much vaunted virus plan is a complete disaster with infections higher than other European countries.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pat,
You might want to read this article: We Need to Talk About Sweden and watch the video below to tuly understand what's really happing in Sweden! ;-)
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Hi cant',
A clear post with your points well made - as is the norm from you. ;-)

The only bit that I have any real issue with is the section I've quoted. I accept entirely that many people buy into the mainstream narrative (polls indicate circa 70% of the population) - and hold the view that you outline here. Needless to say, I don't! Indeed, I'm afraid I think it's totally unreasonable on the grounds that it shifts the onus of responsibility onto others, such that individuals are relinquished from taking any responsibility for themselves. This is completely ar$e about face IMO and in no small measure underpins a lot of what's wrong with society today. If you want to wear a mask and you want to social distance and you would rather not not mix with others or go to crowded Christmas markets etc., - that's your prerogative. I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever; just don't tell me that I can't do it! If David, c_v, new_trader and I all decide to meet up for a Christmas knees up, don't wear masks, don't social distance and embrace one another (no tongues, mind), infect one another and, potentially, kill one another, then that's the risk we have all decided to take. It's our responsibility - not yours. We should be allowed to do it: you have no right to dictate how we live our lives, no no matter how crazy and irresponsible you belive our actions to be.
Tim.

I agree with a lot of that. I can’t abide laws that protect me from myself (seat belts for example) since that is my responsibility. Laws that protect others from me are different and fully I accept it should be so however much it affects my personal choices and actions.

So, if my actions are likely to inhibit controlling a disease that is rampant and killing people I will accept I should curb them since, as a member of society, I don’t believe I have the right to do otherwise and I think it would be irresponsible not to do so. Thus, I do not believe that you have the right to behave irresponsibly.

Similarly, you have no business praying in aid minority views that COVID is a fiction or wildly exaggerated to support your irresponsibility. The majority view says otherwise and as a good democrat you should abide by that view (although you retain the right to disagree, of course).

 

[cantagril]

Hi cant',
A clear post with your points well made - as is the norm from you. ;-)

The only bit that I have any real issue with is the section I've quoted. I accept entirely that many people buy into the mainstream narrative (polls indicate circa 70% of the population) - and hold the view that you outline here. Needless to say, I don't! Indeed, I'm afraid I think it's totally unreasonable on the grounds that it shifts the onus of responsibility onto others, such that individuals are relinquished from taking any responsibility for themselves. This is completely ar$e about face IMO and in no small measure underpins a lot of what's wrong with society today. If you want to wear a mask and you want to social distance and you would rather not not mix with others or go to crowded Christmas markets etc., - that's your prerogative. I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever; just don't tell me that I can't do it! If David, c_v, new_trader and I all decide to meet up for a Christmas knees up, don't wear masks, don't social distance and embrace one another (no tongues, mind), infect one another and, potentially, kill one another, then that's the risk we have all decided to take. It's our responsibility - not yours. We should be allowed to do it: you have no right to dictate how we live our lives, no no matter how crazy and irresponsible you belive our actions to be.
Tim.

It's often useful to take an opposing stance on any question to test whether either position holds up. I hear what you say on the question of responsibility so I'd ask you this: if you knew that that you were infectious and that by not wearing a mask* or distancing that you were taking a chance with somebody's life would you still do so?....and if you merely suspected that you were?? Or thought that there was a reasonable probability??? In any of these cases, how would your sense of responsibility and behaviour be affected?

To add real context to your reflections, I'd ask you to consider the well publicised cases where AIDS has been transmitted in just such circumstances. Mask = Condom and fucking is about as far from distancing as you can get, so to speak.....

*As I'm maybe somewhat surprisingly, quite courteous in the flesh, I do wear a mask - not because I think it protects me to a great degree but because my knowledge of the behaviour of sprays and vapours (inc. coughs and sneezes) tells me that I'm protecting other people. After all, I don't know whether I'm immune or asymptomatic so I could bounce up to you, give you a big friendly T2W hug, tongues and all, (coughing and sneezing all the while) and you'd be dead in a fortnight. I'm not sure that Mrs Timsk would be content to just wish me well and say "Shit happens."

 

[cantagril]

I agree with a lot of that. I can’t abide laws that protect me from myself (seat belts for example) since that is my responsibility. Laws that protect others from me are different and fully I accept it should be so however much it affects my personal choices and actions.

It's my understanding that it's incumbent on the driver of a vehicle to ensure that passengers wear a seat belt and that not doing so renders one liable to prosecution. I wonder how many people these days would be happy to drive without first making sure that their children were not strapped in - fine or no fine. Adults can all go to hell, of course.

 

[timsk]

Hi Jon,

So, if my actions are likely to inhibit controlling a disease that is rampant and killing people I will accept I should curb them since, as a member of society, I don’t believe I have the right to do otherwise and I think it would be irresponsible not to do so. Thus, I do not believe that you have the right to behave irresponsibly.

I would be entirely willing - not only to go along with this - but to be a strong advocate of it to boot if it were true. The stats indicate otherwise, indeed, they are unequivocal. There is negligible risk to anyone below retirement age that doesn't have a comorbidity and the average age of those unlucky enough to die from Covid are a year older than average life expectancy. Under these ciurcumstances, I don't think it's any of your business how I choose to live my life and the responsibility is yours - and ours alone - to undertake whatever measures you feel are appropriate if you feel you're at risk from the disease.

Similarly, you have no business praying in aid minority views that COVID is a fiction or wildly exaggerated to support your irresponsibility. The majority view says otherwise and as a good democrat you should abide by that view (although you retain the right to disagree, of course).

I'm doing no such thing. I look at the official stats published by the ONS, PHE and the NHS to support my view. The 'majority view' as you call it are politicians and SAGE who are ignoring said stats in a bid to protect their ar$es at a personal level and their careers at a professional one. There's waaaay more evidence to indicate that lockdowns don't work than indicates that they do. If you choose to believe in such bunkum, then I'll happily defend your right to do so, just don't expect me to follow suit and especially don't expect me to abide by arbitrary rules that clearly don't work and do nothing other than cause untold misery, economic disaster and are likely to result in more deaths than from the disease itself.
Tim.

 

[timsk]

Hi cant'

It's often useful to take an opposing stance on any question to test whether either position holds up. I hear what you say on the question of responsibility so I'd ask you this: if you knew that that you were infectious and that by not wearing a mask* or distancing that you were taking a chance with somebody's life would you still do so?....and if you merely suspected that you were?? Or thought that there was a reasonable probability??? In any of these cases, how would your sense of responsibility and behaviour be affected?

I'd treat Covid in the same way as I treat flu. If I know I have flu I'll call in sick at work and avoid others if at all possible. If that wasn't possible for some reason, I'd then be happy to undertake any precautionary measures necessary where there's clear evidence to support their use. I'm not a monster!

To add real context to your reflections, I'd ask you to consider the well publicised cases where AIDS has been transmitted in just such circumstances. Mask = Condom and fucking is about as far from distancing as you can get, so to speak.....

*As I'm maybe somewhat surprisingly, quite courteous in the flesh, I do wear a mask - not because I think it protects me to a great degree but because my knowledge of the behaviour of sprays and vapours (inc. coughs and sneezes) tells me that I'm protecting other people. After all, I don't know whether I'm immune or asymptomatic so I could bounce up to you, give you a big friendly T2W hug, tongues and all, (coughing and sneezing all the while) and you'd be dead in a fortnight. I'm not sure that Mrs Timsk would be content to just wish me well and say "Shit happens."

I accept that one might be asymptomatic, but this is precisely where personal responsibility comes into play. If you're elderly with a commorbidity, then it's probably wise to assume that everyone you meet is asymptomatic and to take whatever action you deem to be appropriate.

By way of example, each year I do a summer trip to vist my sister who suffers from very advanced MS and lives near Guildford, and my 95 year old aunt who lives in Chichester. My sister asked me to give her a miss this year - which of course I did. My aunt took a different view, which is that she might not be around in summer 2021 and she would happily take the risk that Mrs timsk and I see her off. We were prepared to take that risk too (that we might pass the disease to her), so we went to see her and her delight that we made the effort was very plain to see. I'm proud of both of them for taking responsibility for their own lives and determining what's best for them. That's what we should all be allowed to do.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Hi Jon,

I would be entirely willing - not only to go along with this - but to be a strong advocate of it to boot if it were true. The stats indicate otherwise, indeed, they are unequivocal. There is negligible risk to anyone below retirement age that doesn't have a comorbidity and the average age of those unlucky enough to die from Covid are a year older than average life expectancy. Under these ciurcumstances, I don't think it's any of your business how I choose to live my life and the responsibility is yours - and ours alone - to undertake whatever measures you feel are appropriate if you feel you're at risk from the disease.

I'm doing no such thing. I look at the official stats published by the ONS, PHE and the NHS to support my view. The 'majority view' as you call it are politicians and SAGE who are ignoring said stats in a bid to protect their ar$es at a personal level and their careers at a professional one. There's waaaay more evidence to indicate that lockdowns don't work than indicates that they do. If you choose to believe in such bunkum, then I'll happily defend your right to do so, just don't expect me to follow suit and especially don't expect me to abide by arbitrary rules that clearly don't work and do nothing other than cause untold misery, economic disaster and are likely to result in more deaths than from the disease itself.
Tim.

You have a right to believe what you like, Tim. Shame that it’s balls, lol.

It’s fair enough that you don’t have a lot of time for politicians, but can you seriously believe that intelligent men and women insist on nuking their economies and creating mass hardship for their citizens on a fiction?

 

[counter_violent]

You have a right to believe what you like, Tim. Shame that it’s balls, lol.

It’s fair enough that you don’t have a lot of time for politicians, but can you seriously believe that intelligent men and women insist on nuking their economies and creating mass hardship for their citizens on a fiction?

Except Tims position is entirely rational.

A question for you.

In the entire history of pandemics, there have never been lock downs of the fit and healthy, so why is it happening with this pandemic?

Pandemics past have concentrated on treating the sick and shielding the vulnerable.

 

[timsk]

You have a right to believe what you like, Tim. Shame that it’s balls, lol.

. . . And visa versa, Jon! ;-)

It’s fair enough that you don’t have a lot of time for politicians, but can you seriously believe that intelligent men and women insist on nuking their economies and creating mass hardship for their citizens on a fiction?

Amazingly, and very frighteningly, that would appear to be the case. As I say, the bulk of the evidence I've seen supports my view and it's why I'm deeply concerned. I'm waaaay more scared of what the government's doing and whatever their reasons are for doing it (to the extent that I lose sleep worrying about it) - than I am about the virus.

As a little aside, I work on an ad hoc basis for a chippie mate of mine. I get out of the house, from under Mrs. Timsk's feet, meet people, learn new skills and earn some pocket money. It's all good. Yesterday, we were ripping out an old kitchen before installing a new one. As well as the two of us, there was the property owner, two sparkies and a plumber - all cheeck by jowl in one room. So, six people not social distancing (it wasn't possible) and no one wore a mask. Was I (or any of them) in the least bit concerned about the threat of Covid? I didn't give it a moment's thought and I doubt any of them did either. However, I was very concerned about live electrical wires, rickety old step ladders on loose floor boards, any number of trip hazards and slipping over on the black ice outside the property before the day warmed up. All of those presented a very real threat to my health and well being, so I was careful and payed attention to what I was doing as well as what was going on around me. The point of the story is that varying levels of risk are everywhere - all the time. It's down to each of us to take responsibility for our own lives and manage the risk we're exposed to accordingly. Or, at least, that's how it ought to be in my view.
Tim.

 

[cantagril]

Except Tims position is entirely rational.

A question for you.

In the entire history of pandemics, there have never been lock downs of the fit and healthy, so why is it happening with this pandemic?

Pandemics past have concentrated on treating the sick and shielding the vulnerable.

Look to your history CV - in the plagues that ravaged Europe there are well-documented instances of survivor communities that isolated themselves and individuals that fled the pestilence....a voluntary version of lock-down. There were also compulsory instances in which usually everybody involved died nastily as members of the group had already been infected. The curse of this particular pox (imo) is that it is neither virulent nor dangerous enough for the general populace to take note so the vulnerable have indeed been getting it because they've been infected by the less vulnerable....and who would be responsible for that?...that damned government, again.

 

[new_trader]

. . . And visa versa, Jon! ;-)

Amazingly, and very frighteningly, that would appear to be the case. As I say, the bulk of the evidence I've seen supports my view and it's why I'm deeply concerned. I'm waaaay more scared of what the government's doing and whatever their reasons are for doing it (to the extent that I lose sleep worrying about it) - than I am about the virus.

I've been saying this from the start, and what is just as worrying is how utterly compliant the citizens are. This pandemic has certainly been a defining moment....knowing the overwhelming majority of people are willing to take away the rights and freedoms of others for the promise of safety and security.

Also, most Governments subscribe to MMT so they don't see any real issue with nuking the economy. Printing will make everything good again.

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

 

[cantagril]

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

I recall that Ben lost his small son to smallpox in what he called "the ordinary way" or some similar expression.

Edit: ...and he was a vaxer too!

 

[new_trader]

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-new_trader

 

[cantagril]

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-new_trader

Now where have I heard that before??

 

[MasterOfCoin]

It's my understanding that it's incumbent on the driver of a vehicle to ensure that passengers wear a seat belt and that not doing so renders one liable to prosecution. I wonder how many people these days would be happy to drive without first making sure that their children were not strapped in - fine or no fine. Adults can all go to hell, of course.

Whilst we're off-topic on the seatbelt thing ...

As I recall, this was quite rightly repeatedly thrown out as a ridiculous nanny-state restriction of personal choice.

Then, eventually, on the umpteenth (17th, I think) attempt by the loony lefty commies, it was sneaked in very watered down, under the pretext of protecting children, and only applied to them, the driver being held to account for their wearing thereof.
This, of course, was the thin end of the wedge and before you could blink a few times, all the rejected clauses had been reinstated by back-to-back amendments with a few extra measures added in to boot.

All that was actually ever needed was a simple measure obliging manufacturers to fit seatbelts to vehicles forthwith, which would have resulted in anyone that wished to wear them being able to do so. having made an educated choice.

Sensible persons would then not have worn them for journeys where the injuries incurred from wearing a seltbelt were substantially more severe than those resulting from not wearing one. On which subject, existed masses of data compiled from accident records and research.

But oh no, that would be much to sensible.

So now you have to wear them, even for when they will cause you life-threatening injuries. Go figure.

On the bright side, it did create a thriving fashion market for jumpers with a broad black stripe across them.

😁

 

[MasterOfCoin]

As to the wearing or not of ridiculously ineffective masks .....

One would like you to cast your mind back to the earliest days of this unfolding fiasco.

There was the 'official spokesperson' from the leading Government-approved Medical Authority, being interviewed on National Prime Time TV.

Part way through the interview, the ultra-keen presenter, desperate to add some theater to the show, whips out one the flimsy masks that, discarded, now litter every nook our environment and waving it around asks ''shouldn't everybody be wearing one of these ?''.

The 'expert' being interviewed bursts into laughter, to the extent that he is at serious risk of falling out of his chair.

On regaining his composure, he patiently explains why, no, there's no point, as such masks provide precious little protection and are likely to engender the wearer with a false sense of security.

Whilst such disposable face coverings will filter out most bacteria from air forced through them, at the scale of viruses, the holes in the fabric are equivalent to expecting the mouth of the Mersey tunnel to prevent the entry of flies therein.

Thus, the only purpose of making such face coverings compulsory, is 'we have to do something that will deceive people into believing they will be helping to fight the virus by complying.

Complete and utter b*llocks, of course, but hey! it's 'saving lives'



If you really want to avoid the virus, don't touch anything, nothing at all, that has not been freshly sterilized, and don't breath air within conversation distance of any other person, or potential animal carrier. Good luck with that tactic.

Chances are, though, you've long since had it and not even noticed.

😷