- This topic has 78 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Given that two of the three most recent candidates for a pandemic SARS and MERS were coronaviruses it is not surprising that the planning for a pandemic involved a corona virus. What is extremely surprising is the very poor performance despite the exercise and how many countries abandoned the basic proper isolation and travel restrictions and delayed their implementations.
As to whether the virus was a lab escape. There seems to be no evidence made from the structure of the virus that it is man made, I think we all agree on that I hope. Whether it was a virus isolated from nature to be studied and then escaped is a different matter but again there is no evidence for this. The only people pushing this theory seem to be, apart from Clark, those who wish to put the Chinese under political pressure.
Having said all that, the speed by which the virus RNA was mapped and isolated by the Chinese and by which diagnostic kits were made is extremely astonishing. This of course is due to how this particular science has developed extremely rapidly recently. Also the record time taken to produce suitable vaccines is unprecedented. But the most astonishing fact about all this, that such a hash was made of dealing with this virus despite the above, shows that these so called great reset conspirators are extremely incompetent in carrying out their agenda, given the opportunity.All governments, all companies, all labs, all industries – all should be under extreme pressure to work entirely openly and accountably.
It’s the routine and ubiquitous secrecy that breeds conspiracy theory; of course people will suspect conspiracy when the majority of everything is conducted behind veils of secrecy.
It is an assault upon mental health that people cannot talk openly about what they do on behalf of their employers.
“J, thanks. Obviously, I’d see no point in watching a film if it was as inaccurate as that.”
The film isn’t inaccurate. I merely wanted to test if you had watched it by falsely quoting the film (which remains perfectly accurate as far as I can tell.) Turns out you’d already heard of event 201 and sidestepped my trap slightly. Proves my point anyway. You’re deeply afraid of arguments and information which risk changing your mind. You prefer to believe your own bullshit, exactly the claim you make about me, to the degree that you won’t expose yourself to alternative narratives for fear of contagion, even if all other facts remain the same.
The problem for your worldview is that it can rarely account for all the data, while claiming to be a rational account, it merely rationalises away most of the conflicting data as faulty data. Other theories exist which better account for the data without resort to rationalisation. Helps you sleep I suppose.
J, April 10 at 15:45 – “My mistake…”
J, April 11 at 23:43 – “I merely wanted to test if you had watched it by falsely quoting the film…”
So your comments were either untruthful, manipulative, or both.
J – “You’re deeply afraid of arguments and information which risk changing your mind.”
How utterly iconic of conspiracy theorists. Yes, yes, yes, J; you’re all far superior to sheeple like me.
J – “You prefer to believe your own bullshit, exactly the claim you make about me”
I made no claim about you, unless you also post under some other username but lost track of your own subterfuge; subterfuge might also seem consistent with your “you […] sidestepped my trap slightly” strategy. Maybe you assume deception and conspiracy because that’s what you’re like yourself?
“Where did it come from?” looks to the past, whereas “well what should we do now?” looks to the future. You cited the list of attendees of Event 201; do you suppose that hanging them all from lamp posts would help?
There’s an incongruity that pops up repeatedly. Compare:
“Paul Schreyer: Pandemic simulation games – Preparation for a new era?“
– “You’re deeply afraid of arguments and information which risk changing your mind.”
I’m forever arguing for sweeping changes to the structure of society, whereas conspiracy theorists are forever warning of a “New World Order”, yet insisting that it’s me that’s incapable of change.
Isn’t some kind of new order desperately needed in the world? Is this some kind of conservative cognitive dissonance; that things clearly need to change, but that change is precisely what conservatism opposes? So every large scale problem has to be a hoax or fabricated, and all that’s needed is to expose the hoaxers so that everything else can stay the same…
J.
You ask us to watch an over an hour long lecture by a German journalist Paul Schreyer and to address the points he makes as prerequisite to answer your post and your take is that the message is that there is a plan to reduce the population drastically and these simulation exercises are a rehearsal for this even though these are not really hidden conspiracies but are documented, if not widely publicized. The following exchanges between you and Clark then centre not about the subject matter but about the one hour video. Could I ask you to tell us briefly why you think Paul Schreyer’s insight is so significant and its relation to the current pandemic. The problem as I see it is that to debate something I need you to tell me what exactly are we debating, because otherwise the discussion becomes rather sidelined into futile accusations. So can you tell us what the importance of this video is and why you think we should spend such a long time to listen to it?I took the time over the weekend to watch the video. In fairness it isn’t inaccurate at all, he mostly describes the chronology of the different Johns Hopkins hosted events, who was present etc etc. I still maintain that if you are going to practise a disaster scenario you are going to pick a plausible situation and coronavirus is a plausible pick. Also you would want the relevant people there and if you think about that you’d have government, health authority, pharmaceutical, media and financial roles and probably other roles such as law enforcement. Funnily enough, those are the people who were present.
Go and find relevant reports from the 1918 flu pandemic and you’ll find the same issues of lockdown vs economy. Even go further to less reliable but still relevant reports of the plague in Europe. It’s not like any of this is new.
What I did find concerning in that video is the part where he shows the graph of FED reserve buying of bonds versus GDP and had nothing to do with the pandemic.
“Proves my point anyway. You’re deeply afraid of arguments and information which risk changing your mind.”
So what exactly is your argument? It’s up to you to make it and give it voice. You see a “dress rehearsal for Covid in September of 2019” and I see a skills drill, albeit an elaborately organised one, but still essentially just a skills drill. I do skills drills all the effing time. Airline pilots, military, fire officers etc etc do also. I hope in future they do better ones. They made a hash of it this time despite all their skills drills.
ET – “They made a hash of it this time despite all their skills drills.”
Well of course, because as is well known, all that’s left of humanity’s hollowed-out public sector is set of taxpayer funded government mega-clients for the mega-corporations. It’s not remotely secret, it’s called neoliberalism, and a fair chunk of the population have been actually voting for it for the last forty years.
It doesn’t matter how many simulations are held; a neoliberal system won’t take the blindest bit of notice of them. It’ll dismiss all recommendations with the need to “cut through government red tape” and arrogantly proclaim that “we must leave it to the market; there is no alternative”.
– – – – – – – – – – –ET, thanks for your summary of the video:
– “it isn’t inaccurate at all, he mostly describes the chronology of the different Johns Hopkins hosted events”
In that case, J’s remark that a previous simulation ‘posited that a “secretive elite cult” has deliberately released a weaponised Corona virus to cause “significant reduction in the global population.”’ is presumably so. How quaint! Of course the Agenda 21 depopulation conspiracy theory has been around for donkey’s years, but it was very generous of John Hopkins Uni to pay such tribute to it.
Of course to conspiracy theorists this just has to be an elaborate double-bluff; “they” pre-publish their diabolical plans just so they can laugh at us all the more, like the villains in Scooby Doo.
Church leaders refuse to close churches to those who don’t have vaccine passports.
This is what you get when there is no political opposition – the church steps in.
1298 signatories so far.The Labour party could easily be organising soup kitchens, organising letters like this too, if there was any will in it to do so.
Good vibes to all the signatories apart from any Calvinists.
To my pleasant surprise, even some bishops have signed – probably suffragan ones, but I haven’t checked.
Many who have signed have probably been brave to do so, because I doubt signing will win them any brownie points whatsoever.
If Dominic Cummings had his way, those who haven’t rolled up their sleeves and taken it in the arm for Big Pharma and the state wouldn’t be allowed to go to confession. Before they even got to the door of the church their microchip implants would call in the drones. “Stay where you are! Anti-social element in zone 746!” If they did manage to make it into the church, an van would soon roll up and masked police in big boots and with “NHS” on their helmets would chase them up the aisle and force them to cower in a pew at gunpoint.
You can imagine why some priests and ministers aren’t so happy about that, quite aside from the fact that vaccines have been developed using human embryos.
I wonder what Mary Wakefield, convert to Roman Catholicism, thinks.
Those reading this who belong to Christian congregations should consider drawing this letter to the attention of their priest or other minister. It remains open for signatures.
There may turn out to be more “people’s priests” than there are “people’s scientists”. I wouldn’t hurry to call anybody a “people’s scientist”, but I guess I’d grant the description to Piers Corbyn if he wants it. (For those who don’t already know, he totally bested the Meteorological Office and other “professional” meteorologists in weather prediction.)
Signatories so far from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church all seem to hold office junior to the rank of bishop.
They are very probably closer to real people and further from administering large amounts of money than any bishops in those churches are.
Good vibes to all signatories (except Calvinists). Good for you, refusing to let the state authorities tell you to close the doors of your churches to certain people.
Piers Corbyn? The “people’s scientist” who says that covid-19 and global warming are both hoaxes? What sort of “people’s scientist” promotes anti-science that would kill millions (the former) and billions (the latter)? His “science” utterly contradicts literally planetary-scale evidence; the Arctic icecap has mostly melted away. You can’t even check his weather forecasts because he doesn’t publish them, he just sells them to a tiny clique of private companies.
N_, when are you going to realise that you’ve been blinded by conspiracy theory? Never, I suppose; that special feeling of possessing secret knowledge is just too enjoyable – so damn the consequences for all and sundry.
Clark: “What sort of “people’s scientist” promotes anti-science that would kill millions (the former) and billions (the latter)?“
A very odd “scientist” indeed. Almost as odd as a “Marxist” who likes promoting alt-right conspiracy theories, I would say.
Here is a bit of science for anyone interested in the mRNA development story.
The mRNA revolution: How COVID-19 hit fast-forward on an experimental technology
As expected, the rulers in Britain seem to be moving towards “local lockdowns”. Some newspapers are referring to “regional tiers”. Closing off specified areas and not letting people out, while others can go about their business freely, has of course had other names in the past.
The “debating point” the rulers are putting up “against” themselves is that such measures will hit the poor hardest. Not for the first time during the pandemic, members of the Tory party – whether petty bourgeois or high class – must be in absolute seventh heaven.
Travel restrictions are the most effective tool against the spread of infection. China and Australia have both succeeded in controlling covid-19 by enforcing brief but strong travel restrictions. You can see how effective this is from the “Daily New Cases” graphs at the links below; China has suppressed major infection waves for fourteen months, Australia for ten months:
China Daily New Cases
Australia Daily New Cases
I saw this for myself watching the international tennis from Melbourne earlier this year. In the middle of a match an announcement was made over the PA – stop the match, the public must clear the court and go home – immediate lockdown of Melbourne. Nine tests in Melbourne had returned positive – not nine hospital admissions or nine deaths; just nine positive tests.
Draconian, you may say, but just five days later, Melbourne reopened again. Trace and test had been performed and around fifty people quarantined; beyond those fifty there were no further positive results. Such response is practical when there are only nine cases to follow up. The UK, with an estimated 10,000 new infections daily wouldn’t stand a chance unless we got the numbers at least two orders of magnitude lower.
The endcoronavirus.org site has been telling this for some time:
Green Zones –
In a year of suffering and losses, many countries have made their own experiments in how to deal with COVID-19.
The results of these experiments are known:- Having COVID-19 under control reduces suffering and losses.
- No country has COVID-19 under control without strong travel restrictions.
- No country has COVID-19 under control by trying to keep the numbers at a non-zero threshold.
- It is easier to get back to zero if you react fast to new outbreaks.
- It is not too late to try to get COVID-19 under control and it doesn’t take long.
Let’s learn from the countries that succeeded. Go for zero – with a green-zone strategy.
Note that my argument is about epidemic control, not politics. Lockdowns can be implemented in either elitist or socially supportive ways, and in either brutal or humane ways.
But whichever way lockdowns are implemented, shorter is better. Businesses and workers can withstand a week of lockdown. The UK’s three month lockdowns drive businesses to bankruptcy and workers to destitution.
– “Closing off specified areas and not letting people out”
That is the correct way to do it; remember what happened in December. The government announced in advance that London would be subjected to Tier 4 restrictions on a particular date, which provoked a mass exodus from the most infected part of the country to all other regions, spreading and accelerating the outbreak and thereby prolonging the eventual lockdown.
I would much rather that local people’s assemblies would enforce their own restrictions, allowing people in only from other Green Zones. This would be far more robust; everyone within a locality would have a very strong incentive to protect their infection-free status, so people would cooperate and back each other up. This is localism and anarchism’s approach to epidemic control. Alas, nearly the entire population have displaced their agency and responsibility onto the utterly corrupt national government, which fails them repeatedly and comprehensively.
‘Biggest data grab’ in NHS history stuffs GP records in a central store for ‘research’
Not really sure that this fits into this thread except that it seems to be happening under the cover of the pandemic. You have until June 23 to opt out, forms linked in the article.ET, that link is wrong, but it’s interesting.
I’m pretty sure this one is where you meant to link:
The Register – NHS Data Grab
Correct Clark. I mixed them up though I read both.
I’m not sure whether to opt out or not. I’m very much in favour of gathering medical data together for medical research, and very much opposed to selling it on to predatory private health companies.
I know Ben Goldacre was working on some big NHS health data project. I saw it on his Twitter stream, probably last summer; they’d just got it complete and working. I can’t remember what it was called, but nothing in that article reminded me of its name.
“I’m very much in favour of gathering medical data together for medical research,”
Me also, but not in this way. Patients are not informed and consent not sought. There is no delineation as to what the data may be used for or to whom it may be given. Something such as this should have been public knowledge is such a way as you didn’t have to read niche specialist news sites to know about it. During a time when people have least engagement with their GPs in person. There is something very wrong with the optics of this.
What’s the point of GPs British culture is based on castes treating members of castes beneath them as if they were subhumans only concerned with grabbing stuff without making a contribution, but surely even somebody who went to state school and didn’t inherit any wealth knows whether they’ve got bellyache, ankle pain, ear-nose-throat symptoms, or a sore a*sehole?
