All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Measures (like masks) reduce the spread of the virus. If that spread continues to rise, then measures to reduce it have to be increased (e.g. lockdown). The virus hasn't spread evenly, some countries have experienced larger surges than other countries and at different stages. For example, France had a high spike, then a dip in the summer, then experienced a severe second wave.

What's the conspiracy explanation?

Also can you please address the below:

Scenario: You are running a democratic island nation, population 1 million. A highly infectious disease has come onto the island threatening to overwhelm your health systems.

It's all just kicked off, what measures do you take to reduce the spread of the virus? you have to also balance economic needs

But Peru had an extremely harsh lockdown (possibly still has a rather harsh one) and masks everywhere and they still had huge numbers. Have either lockdowns or masks been effective in the case of Peru specifically?

The conspiracy is that they know masks are useless, but that they are forcing people to wear them to control them.

Regarding your question, I would not lockdown or close businesses. Lockdowns have catastrophic consequences. I would provide people with information and let them decide for themselves what precautions to take. No masks, no distancing. I would take measures proportionate to the threat. If it was a mild virus, which covid is, for example, for the vast majority of people, I would do nothing.

Sardonicat

Quiner wrote: »

But Peru had an extremely harsh lockdown (possibly still has a rather harsh one) and masks everywhere and they still had huge numbers. Have either lockdowns or masks been effective in the case of Peru specifically?

The conspiracy is that they know masks are useless, but that they are forcing people to wear them to control them.

Regarding your question, I would not lockdown or close businesses. Lockdowns have catastrophic consequences. I would provide people with information and let them decide for themselves what precautions to take. No masks, no distancing. I would take measures proportionate to the threat. If it was a mild virus, which covid is, for example, for the vast majority of people, I would do nothing.

So what do you do about the minority for whom it is a serious threat and rely on others who are completely exposed to the virus to survive?

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

But Peru had an extremely harsh lockdown (possibly still has a rather harsh one) and masks everywhere and they still had huge numbers. Have either lockdowns or masks been effective in the case of Peru specifically?

Measures reduce the spread of the virus. But if people don't adhere to those measures properly then the spread isn't reduced.

The conspiracy is that they know masks are useless, but that they are forcing people to wear them to control them.

That makes utterly no sense.

Regarding your question, I would not lockdown or close businesses. Lockdowns have catastrophic consequences.

If it was a mild virus, which covid is, for example, for the vast majority of people, I would do nothing.

The virus is now spreading out of control, the health system is overrun and people are dying on hospital steps, what is your solution? (this is not hypothetical, countries have come close to capacity, in some European countries city hospitals were full - and that's with measures)

Quiner

Sardonicat wrote: »

So what do you do about the minority for whom it is a serious threat and rely on others who are completely exposed to the virus to survive?

Let's take covid, for example. I would provide people with information about the virus and leave it up to them to decide what to do. If they want to shield themselves then that is their right, but they should also have the right to take the risk of catching it and falling ill. Lord Jonathan Sumption said a few months ago that he'd go to the pub and to the theatre if they were both open. People should be allowed to decide for themselves. Life isn't risk free. And there's something wrong with a health service that can't cope with a virus with a 99.9% survival rate.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Measures reduce the spread of the virus. But if people don't adhere to those measures properly then the spread isn't reduced.



That makes utterly no sense.





The virus is now spreading out of control, the health system is overrun and people are dying on hospital steps, what is your solution? (this is not hypothetical, countries have come close to capacity, in some European countries city hospitals were full - and that's with measures)

But people in Peru have followed the measures. They have tyrannical policemen over there as well as in the West who made sure people obeyed the government and their experts.

Why does it not make sense? They're clearly useless based on the numbers of cases and deaths, so what is the purpose of them if not for controlling people and wearing them down?

Were they full? It seems that almost every story about hospitals being full is followed by another story about them being quieter than previous years. That's why it's so hard to know what to believe. 300,000 excess deaths in the US, according to some, the US on track to have fewer deaths this year than in previous years, according to others. Both can't be true.

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

Let's take covid, for example. I would provide people with information about the virus and leave it up to them to decide what to do. If they want to shield themselves then that is their right, but they should also have the right to take the risk of catching it and falling ill. Lord Jonathan Sumption said a few months ago that he'd go to the pub and to the theatre if they were both open. People should be allowed to decide for themselves. Life isn't risk free. And there's something wrong with a health service that can't cope with a virus with a 99.9% survival rate.

Jesus christ

Almost one in a thousand people in the US has died from Covid, approx 1.6 mm total deaths world wide, in Peru, which you mentioned earlier, the death rate is 3.72% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Peru
Many more have to be hospitalised and put on ventilators, this overwhelms hospitals and threatens to overrun even first world countries. Hence measures and drastic measures (national lockdowns) to reduce the virus and flatten the curve

No offence but from your views it's crystal clear you have utterly no notion or clue of what's going on and the general ignorance on display here is staggering.

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

But people in Peru have followed the measures.

No they clearly haven't.

They're clearly useless based on the numbers of cases and deaths

The virus is airborne, when you cough, you exhale droplets, the virus clings to those droplets and can spread to others. Masks reduces that spread. Keyword: reduces.

Masks don't magically stop the virus, masks don't work on their own. They work in conjunction with other measures (like social distancing)

Is there any part of this you can't understand?

Were they full?

Hospitals in certain countries were hitting or coming close to max capacity. This is a fact. I can provide many sources if you don't believe or understand this.

If you can't understand something or sort basic information it does not automatically mean a giant conspiracy is taking place.

Sardonicat

Quiner wrote: »

Let's take covid, for example. I would provide people with information about the virus and leave it up to them to decide what to do. If they want to shield themselves then that is their right, but they should also have the right to take the risk of catching it and falling ill. Lord Jonathan Sumption said a few months ago that he'd go to the pub and to the theatre if they were both open. People should be allowed to decide for themselves. Life isn't risk free. And there's something wrong with a health service that can't cope with a virus with a 99.9% survival rate.

What if they are not capable of deciding. You have heard of dementia, or profound learning disabilities often coupled with serious health issues that would make someone extremely vulnerable to dying from COVID. The people on whom they rely to eat, bathe, medicate, eliminate, none if which can be done from a safe distance, are now completely exposed to the virus because no measures are in place under your system of letting people decide for themselves. Do you remember what happened in our Nursing and residential homes at the start if this outbreak?

It's pretty obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about TBH.

Dohnjoe

The consistency of ignorance combined with paranoia is impossible not to notice in every one of these threads.

Quiner

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Jesus christ

Almost one in a thousand people in the US has died from Covid, approx 1.6 mm total deaths world wide, in Peru, which you mentioned earlier, the death rate is 3.72% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Peru
Many more have to be hospitalised and put on ventilators, this overwhelms hospitals and threatens to overrun even first world countries. Hence measures and drastic measures (national lockdowns) to reduce the virus and flatten the curve

No offence but from your views it's crystal clear you have utterly no notion or clue of what's going on and the general ignorance on display here is staggering.

And the point I am making it that those measures have done nothing to prevent what you are describing. Nothing.

Dr Rand Paul's thoughts on the uselessness of masks:

It’d be one thing if we were told you have to give up your liberty, you have to give up your freedom, we’re going to save your life. But what if you have to give up all your freedoms and they’re wrong on the science?

Every one of the mandates — and you look in country after country, state after state — you look at when the mask mandates went in — the incidents went up exponentially after the mandates. Restaurants, nobody can eat in a restaurant, there’s no science behind any of that.

Middle seat missing on the airplane, you really think you’re like 12 inches from the other guy instead of six inches, it really makes a difference? None of it really makes any sense, and there’s no epidemiological evidence. You know, it’s like, ‘Wash your hands, stand six feet apart.’

There’s no evidence that that slowed down the [spread]. … The trajectory of the virus hasn’t been altered at all by any of these things. I think the vaccine will, and this is why I really despise people like the CNN Doctor [Sanjay] Gupta, who I think is committing television malpractice by saying, ‘Oh, your mask is a much better thing than the vaccine.’ Well, no, it isn’t. The masks aren’t working at all. The thing’s going through the roof and people are dying. Why would you want to discourage someone from taking a vaccine and say, ‘Oh wear the mask.’?

And the masks are different, too. The N95 mask actually does work to a certain extent, if worn properly and used [with] sterile technique. In the hospital, our doctors — I have a brother and sister who are doctors, they wear the N95 mask, and it’s kept them from getting infected — but there’s no value to the cloth mask, at all.

It’s like wearing your underwear. You might as well cut your underwear up and wear your underwear as protection. It doesn’t work."

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/12/20/exclusive-rand-paul-masks-are-all-about-submission/

And, contrary to what has been reported, masks aren't really that much of an issue in the US. A survey revealed recently that 85% of Americans say they wear a mask every day at all times.

And then there's the fact that the US is a particular case due to high levels of obesity and underlying conditions.

Is Dr Paul wrong?

Quiner

Sardonicat wrote: »

What if they are not capable of deciding. You have heard of dementia, or profound learning disabilities often coupled with serious health issues that would make someone extremely vulnerable to dying from COVID. The people on whom they rely to eat, bathe, medicate, eliminate, none if which can be done from a safe distance, are now completely exposed to the virus because no measures are in place under your system of letting people decide for themselves. Do you remember what happened in our Nursing and residential homes at the start if this outbreak?

It's pretty obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about TBH.

But I would have measures in place, but they'd be targeted so as to protect the people you describe.

Sardonicat

Quiner wrote: »

But I would have measures in place, but they'd be targeted so as to protect the people you describe.

What are they then?

brianhere

Dohnjoe
"What's the conspiracy explanation?"

I can confirm for you that there is no 'conspiracy theory' involved here. There are only some facts in relation to the government response to this virus that we seek to highlight.

In particular that they are lying to you when they say do this and that for a few weeks to 'flatten the curve', 'save Christmas', a 'circuit breaker' (the latest one by the way, as I read on the rte website while ago, is to cancel Christmas to save it next year!), while in reality this destruction of our civil liberties are, and were always intended to be, permanent.

It was a management decision here on this web forum to send this thread to the 'conspiracy theory' section, away from the main coronavirus section, so if you have any queries on same you should bring it up with them.

Quiner

brianhere wrote: »

Dohnjoe
"What's the conspiracy explanation?"

I can confirm for you that there is no 'conspiracy theory' involved here. There are only some facts in relation to the government response to this virus that we seek to highlight.

In particular that they are lying to you when they say do this and that for a few weeks to 'flatten the curve', 'save Christmas', a 'circuit breaker' (the latest one by the way, as I read on the rte website while ago, is to cancel Christmas to save it next year!), while in reality this destruction of our civil liberties are, and were always intended to be, permanent.

It was a management decision here on this web forum to send this thread to the 'conspiracy theory' section, away from the main coronavirus section, so if you have any queries on same you should bring it up with them.

Spot on. From two weeks to health passports, QR codes, mass surveillance, permanent mask wearing.

Quiner

Sardonicat wrote: »

What are they then?

As I said, people, or their carers, would be informed of the risks and it would be up to them to decide what risks they want to take, or to shield themselves from other people.

The present farce has caused nothing but misery, as well as thousands of deaths as a result of lockdowns and cancelled appointments because of the covid obsession. Two young mothers in the UK dead of cancer, and about to die of cancer, respectively, because of cancelled appointments as a result of the covid obsession.

Sardonicat

Quiner wrote: »

As I said, people, or their carers, would be informed of the risks and it would be up to them to decide what risks they want to take, or to shield themselves from other people.

The present farce has caused nothing but misery, as well as thousands of deaths as a result of lockdowns and cancelled appointments because of the covid obsession. Two young mothers in the UK dead of cancer, and about to die of cancer, respectively, because of cancelled appointments as a result of the covid obsession.

Those aren't targeted measures. How do they get food and other provisions safely? How are other adults in the house supposed to go to work or other children go to school of it means exposing them to a virus in an environment where no measures are put in place. Everyone in the house can 'decide' to stay locked inside, is it? Or decide not to and infect a family member that has no say in the matter?

sabat

brianhere wrote: »

It was a management decision here on this web forum to send this thread to the 'conspiracy theory' section, away from the main coronavirus section, so if you have any queries on same you should bring it up with them.

100%. It's a form of editorialising.

Quiner

Sardonicat wrote: »

Those aren't targeted measures. How do they get food and other provisions safely? How are other adults in the house supposed to go to work or other children go to school of it means exposing them to a virus in an environment where no measures are put in place. Everyone in the house can 'decide' to stay locked inside, is it? Or decide not to and infect a family member that has no say in the matter?

People can buy food for them, and leave it outside their door.

They can work from home, if possible.

The alternative is misery, famine, increasing numbers of people being at risk of starving to death, deaths of young mothers from cancer because of missed appointments due to the covid obsession. I could go on.

Sardonicat

Quiner wrote: »

People can buy food for them, and leave it outside their door.

They can work from home, if possible.

The alternative is misery, famine, increasing numbers of people being at risk of starving to death, deaths of young mothers from cancer because of missed appointments due to the covid obsession. I could go on.

What people will buy food for them? Will you? What if they cant work from home? Why should their children give up school?

Quiner

Sardonicat wrote: »

What people will buy food for them? Will you? What if they cant work from home? Why should their children give up school?

Neighbours. Yes, I would. Of course.

If they couldn't work from home then they could be temporarily let go, on pay, while they look for a job that would allow them to work from home. They should be given all the help they need.

Would their children be at risk, or is it that family members would be at risk because of the children going to school? If it is the latter then those family members could be temporarily placed in housing away from the children. There are ways to be creative. The present farce has achieved nothing but misery, deaths from cancer, depression, a tsunami of business closures etc. Would you agree with me?

Sardonicat

Quiner wrote: »

Neighbours. Yes, I would. Of course.

If they couldn't work from home then they could be temporarily let go, on pay, while they look for a job that would allow them to work from home. They should be given all the help they need.

Would their children be at risk, or is it that family members would be at risk because of the children going to school? If it is the latter then those family members could be temporarily placed in housing away from the children. There are ways to be creative. The present farce has achieved nothing but misery, deaths from cancer, depression, a tsunami of business closures etc. Would you agree with me?

Who''a going to take care of the rehomed family members? Where will these residential facilities of fully trained staff come from? How will those staff remain safe from the virus? Special residential facilities that they cannot leave? How would you convince people to take that job?

Quiner

Sardonicat wrote: »

Who''a going to take care of the rehomed family members? Where will these residential facilities of fully trained staff come from? How will those staff remain safe from the virus? Special residential facilities that they cannot leave? How would you convince people to take that job?

Their carers. They can be tested daily. The people would be placed in temporary housing. There are plenty of ghost estates across the country that could be used temporarily.

The carers could live in the temporary housing, or in another house in the ghost estate.

Would you agree with me about the terrible consequences of what's being done at present? You didn't answer the question.

The Raging Bile Duct

Quiner wrote: »

Their carers. They can be tested daily. The people would be placed in temporary housing. There are plenty of ghost estates across the country that could be used temporarily.

The carers could live in the temporary housing, or in another house in the ghost estate.

Would you agree with me about the terrible consequences of what's being done at present? You didn't answer the question.

Are you honestly for real with this suggestion? Jesus...

Quiner

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Are you honestly for real with this suggestion? Jesus...

It's very much along the lines of what the doctors and scientists who support the Great Barrington Declaration have suggested.

Why not try it? The present policy has achieved nothing but misery, as far as I can see.

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yes, everytime they cross a road.

Don't be ridiculous.


Do you see everybody being forced to wear helmets and a type of armoured suit donned by bomb disposable personnel to protect them from being struck by a car?

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.


Do you see everybody being forced to wear helmets and a type of armoured suit donned by bomb disposable personnel to protect them from being struck by a car?

People are careful when they cross the road to protect themselves. Cyclists wear helmets, car drivers wear seat belts, kids wear hi viz vests and arm bands walking to school.

This may surprise you but sensible people wear things that will protect themselves.

ShatterAlan

Quiner wrote: »

Their carers. They can be tested daily. The people would be placed in temporary housing. There are plenty of ghost estates across the country that could be used temporarily.

The carers could live in the temporary housing, or in another house in the ghost estate.

Would you agree with me about the terrible consequences of what's being done at present? You didn't answer the question.

You are making good points and that is why you are getting such an aggressive pushback.


It's like a form of cognitive dissonance. Point out glaring contradictions and the shills lose the plot. Provide them with a solution no matter how ridiculous it is and they'll trip over themselves to find a problem that that solution addresses.


Case in point. 30 people were allowed attend weddings yet only 10 were allowed attend funerals. Nevermind that funerals tend to be held outdoors while weddings tend to occur indoors. The party line gang tied themselves in knots trying to float some inane justification for this and then the numbers were adjusted to allow equal attendance for both sets of events. I didn't see the shills screaming that it was crazy to allow more than 10 at a funeral based on the reasons they pulled out of a hat.

Quiner

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You are making good points and that is why you are getting such an aggressive pushback.


It's like a form of cognitive dissonance. Point out glaring contradictions and the shills lose the plot. Provide them with a solution no matter how ridiculous it is and they'll trip over themselves to find a problem that that solution addresses.


Case in point. 30 people were allowed attend weddings yet only 10 were allowed attend funerals. Nevermind that funerals tend to be held outdoors while weddings tend to occur indoors. The party line gang tied themselves in knots trying to float some inane justification for this and then the numbers were adjusted to allow equal attendance for both sets of events. I didn't see the shills screaming that it was crazy to allow more than 10 at a funeral based on the reasons they pulled out of a hat.

Thanks. It really is amazing how much people will put up with. Even as far as seeing nothing wrong with doing everyday things being conditional upon the light flashing green on the health passport. Is there nothing people won't accept in the name of 'safety'? It's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Point out glaring contradictions and the shills lose the plot.

Please tell us you aren't suggesting people arguing against conspiracy theorists are paid..

Dohnjoe

Quiner wrote: »

Thanks. It really is amazing how much people will put up with. Even as far as seeing nothing wrong with doing everyday things being conditional upon the light flashing green on the health passport. Is there nothing people won't accept in the name of 'safety'? It's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

Health passports already exist, they help people with difficult conditions to communicate what their medical preferences or needs are.

This other health passport idea, is just a proposal, by a company, to have a thing which can identify if someone has Covid, for e.g. employees in an office situation.

I have no idea why you are trying to spread hysteria over it.