CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)
Discussion
croyde said:
Why are they all running scared and making these big economy shattering decisions that are also destroying people's health and wellbeing?
The only explanation for it that would make sense to me (and I’m not saying this is the case or that I suspect it) is that these govts and their scientists know something about this virus and disease that they are not telling us. Like serious long term effects or such like (and I don’t just mean post viral fatigue / “long covid”).In the absence of that, it is simply insanity.
markyb_lcy said:
The only explanation for it that would make sense to me (and I’m not saying this is the case or that I suspect it) is that these govts and their scientists know something about this virus and disease that they are not telling us. Like serious long term effects or such like (and I don’t just mean post viral fatigue / “long covid”).
In the absence of that, it is simply insanity.
If Boris is anything to go by, it clearly affects your ability to speak clearly.In the absence of that, it is simply insanity.
Pupbelly said:
I don't recall seeing a reply to a previously asked question but.....Where does all of the money go that is being given to these councils under the Covid Tier 2/3 payouts?
Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
Anybody???Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
Pupbelly said:
Pupbelly said:
I don't recall seeing a reply to a previously asked question but.....Where does all of the money go that is being given to these councils under the Covid Tier 2/3 payouts?
Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
Anybody???Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
s.A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback. In 20XX, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike XXXXXXXXX, this new virus strain was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world.
“The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders”
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and Restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
I've replaced a couple of things with Xs but that's all. It's a pretty accurate picture of where we are now and where we are headed.
What is often surprising about new technologies is collateral damage: the extent of the problem that you can create by solving another problem is always a bit of a surprise.
A quote from a man with a degree and doctorate in physiology and 40 years experience in global health. The key point about collateral damage is not just confined to new technology. It is of much wider application.
It echoes the point Thomas E. Woods makes about the monomaniacal focus on this virus by those whose decisions affect the lives of millions. The question people should be asking is who stands to gain by Project Fear. The answer is the same as it has always been, Follow the money trail.
“The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders”
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and Restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
I've replaced a couple of things with Xs but that's all. It's a pretty accurate picture of where we are now and where we are headed.
What is often surprising about new technologies is collateral damage: the extent of the problem that you can create by solving another problem is always a bit of a surprise.
A quote from a man with a degree and doctorate in physiology and 40 years experience in global health. The key point about collateral damage is not just confined to new technology. It is of much wider application.
It echoes the point Thomas E. Woods makes about the monomaniacal focus on this virus by those whose decisions affect the lives of millions. The question people should be asking is who stands to gain by Project Fear. The answer is the same as it has always been, Follow the money trail.
Pupbelly said:
Pupbelly said:
I don't recall seeing a reply to a previously asked question but.....Where does all of the money go that is being given to these councils under the Covid Tier 2/3 payouts?
Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
Anybody???Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
markyb_lcy said:
croyde said:
Why are they all running scared and making these big economy shattering decisions that are also destroying people's health and wellbeing?
The only explanation for it that would make sense to me (and I’m not saying this is the case or that I suspect it) is that these govts and their scientists know something about this virus and disease that they are not telling us. Like serious long term effects or such like (and I don’t just mean post viral fatigue / “long covid”).In the absence of that, it is simply insanity.
times radio said:
The United Kingdom government could impose "circuit break" lockdowns in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus in the areas under tier 2 and tier 3 levels of alert, the Times Radio reported on Wednesday.
The lockdowns would last three weeks, the report read and added that the containment measures could be implemented as early as next month. "Plans are being actively worked up by Chris Whitty for local 3-week circuit breaker lockdowns in Tier 2 as well as Tier 3 areas across England," it noted.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled a day ago that London is working to avoid nationwide lockdowns, but stressed that "tougher measures" can't be ruled out as an option.
https://www.teletrader.com/news/details/53537043?internal=1&ts=1603287628272The lockdowns would last three weeks, the report read and added that the containment measures could be implemented as early as next month. "Plans are being actively worked up by Chris Whitty for local 3-week circuit breaker lockdowns in Tier 2 as well as Tier 3 areas across England," it noted.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled a day ago that London is working to avoid nationwide lockdowns, but stressed that "tougher measures" can't be ruled out as an option.
Rules version 10 coming up,
grumbledoak said:
croyde said:
Why are they all running scared and making these big economy shattering decisions that are also destroying people's health and wellbeing?
Good question.t then no-one is to blame as everyone is in the same boat, but if you choose a different option and hit the wall then you stand alone with that potential failure. Add on to that lots of people suddenly being given extra powers (councils, covid marshalls, the police, etc) and you have a recipe for disaster.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IJCXXTMrv8
This is another good video on conformity - and IMHO reflects the psychological forces on why many people simply cannot question the mainstream narrative WRT masks/lockdowns, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARGczzoPASo
cymatty said:
times radio said:
The United Kingdom government could impose "circuit break" lockdowns in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus in the areas under tier 2 and tier 3 levels of alert, the Times Radio reported on Wednesday.
The lockdowns would last three weeks, the report read and added that the containment measures could be implemented as early as next month. "Plans are being actively worked up by Chris Whitty for local 3-week circuit breaker lockdowns in Tier 2 as well as Tier 3 areas across England," it noted.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled a day ago that London is working to avoid nationwide lockdowns, but stressed that "tougher measures" can't be ruled out as an option.
https://www.teletrader.com/news/details/53537043?internal=1&ts=1603287628272The lockdowns would last three weeks, the report read and added that the containment measures could be implemented as early as next month. "Plans are being actively worked up by Chris Whitty for local 3-week circuit breaker lockdowns in Tier 2 as well as Tier 3 areas across England," it noted.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled a day ago that London is working to avoid nationwide lockdowns, but stressed that "tougher measures" can't be ruled out as an option.
Rules version 10 coming up,
ks.Taylor James said:
I agree. I was saying the same to my sister this morning. I don't say this with any medical experience behind me but isn't this virus almost certain to mutate? Perhaps they have a good idea about the lethality of that mutation.
From an evolutionary perspective, it does not make sense for a virus to mutate to become more deadly.A virus existence is simply to replicate, the more people it can infect the better.
If you die after contracting it you will limit the number of people you can infect because you’re dead.
Much better for a virus to be almost imperceptible, as we already see with asymptomatic transmission.
So I would not buy the fact that people believe it will mutate into something much more deadly.
Red Devil said:
A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback. In 20XX, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike XXXXXXXXX, this new virus strain was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world.
“The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders”
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and Restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
I've replaced a couple of things with Xs but that's all. It's a pretty accurate picture of where we are now and where we are headed.
“The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders”
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and Restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
I've replaced a couple of things with Xs but that's all. It's a pretty accurate picture of where we are now and where we are headed.
People have plans for us.Sam.M said:
From an evolutionary perspective, it does not make sense for a virus to mutate to become more deadly.
A virus existence is simply to replicate, the more people it can infect the better.
If you die after contracting it you will limit the number of people you can infect because you’re dead.
Much better for a virus to be almost imperceptible, as we already see with asymptomatic transmission.
So I would not buy the fact that people believe it will mutate into something much more deadly.
Huh?A virus existence is simply to replicate, the more people it can infect the better.
If you die after contracting it you will limit the number of people you can infect because you’re dead.
Much better for a virus to be almost imperceptible, as we already see with asymptomatic transmission.
So I would not buy the fact that people believe it will mutate into something much more deadly.
Are you attributing some form of intelligence to a virus?
johnboy1975 said:
Pupbelly said:
Pupbelly said:
I don't recall seeing a reply to a previously asked question but.....Where does all of the money go that is being given to these councils under the Covid Tier 2/3 payouts?
Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
Anybody???Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
V1nce Fox said:
not sure but i'm a little concerned instead of supporting furloughed salaries it'll get spunked away on marshalls and other assorted unnecessary clipboard s.
So there is multi-millions of pounds being handed out and nobody has a clue where its going? fs.k me what a mess!!
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Sam.M said:
From an evolutionary perspective, it does not make sense for a virus to mutate to become more deadly.
A virus existence is simply to replicate, the more people it can infect the better.
If you die after contracting it you will limit the number of people you can infect because you’re dead.
Much better for a virus to be almost imperceptible, as we already see with asymptomatic transmission.
So I would not buy the fact that people believe it will mutate into something much more deadly.
Huh?A virus existence is simply to replicate, the more people it can infect the better.
If you die after contracting it you will limit the number of people you can infect because you’re dead.
Much better for a virus to be almost imperceptible, as we already see with asymptomatic transmission.
So I would not buy the fact that people believe it will mutate into something much more deadly.
Are you attributing some form of intelligence to a virus?
Viruses mutate randomly, some mutations are successful in continuing to exist, some are not.
A virus strain that kills 100% of its hosts will likely be a dead end because those hosts fall ill, stop moving around(i.e. you'r'e in hospital or at home) and you die, limiting exposure to others.
A virus strain that kills 0.1% of its host and causes almost no symptoms in its infectees will likely continue to exist, because its hosts walk around spreading it, unaware.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st October 14:56
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st October 15:01
WinstonWolf said:
CABC said:
Twinfan said:
pussinboots said:
I think it's very much cultural. If you look at the East Asian countries, wearing masks is much more prevalent. Although difficult to prove any causal link, the Asian countries are doing far better in controlling the virus than the West. These countries are much more densely populated and have not instituted the kind of lockdowns to the same extent as here. They have not made mask wearing mandatory because they don't need to - it's become a social norm. To me it's just common sense that wearing masks may help reduce infection rates, and at worst does very little. The alternatives are either harsh lockdowns, or large number of deaths. I think the choice is clear?
Another view is that the Asian countries have been exposed to more similar viruses in the past therefore they have a level of immunity already.So under that theory, it has cock all to do with masks.
king whoops 
johnboy1975 said:
Pupbelly said:
Pupbelly said:
I don't recall seeing a reply to a previously asked question but.....Where does all of the money go that is being given to these councils under the Covid Tier 2/3 payouts?
Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
Anybody???Are they accountable? i.e. the council has to demonstrate where the the money has / is being spent or does it just prop up general council spending and dissolves?
The track and trace money (according to news report earlier) is £8 per head and is over and above any other grant.
grumbledoak said:
croyde said:
Why are they all running scared and making these big economy shattering decisions that are also destroying people's health and wellbeing?
Good question.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff