Coronavirus Pandemic

I agree with you on this Eric.
Maybe re-read what I wrote?
Supporting power for power's sake is not ok. Police / government have AND display power - they do not have proper sense (much of the time).
"Free" is self trust.
Restrained (as Silence seems to support) is leaning or depending on strengths Silence can not alone display or control.
Not even in his own mind (my opinion). He will support that which shows power first - facts probably do not matter.
Ah got it. I was slow on the uptake this morning. Re-read.
 
Looks like we can call off the weekend warrior brigade and assorted militiamen of the backwoods. I know they were itching to use their grandpa's squirrel hunting rifles and prove their manhood in a spectacular fight for 'Merica, but it doesn't appear they're going to have to be called on to "liberate" us from the tyrannical forces behind the pandemic lockdown. Based on the headlines of our nation's dwindling newspapers it appears that we're opening up for business, like it or not. There will be no freedom for those who love the health and safety of themselves and their families, friends, and neighbors, but for those who want to get back to prostrating themselves before Mammon in pursuit of all those materialistic goodies and the continued defrauding of the lower and middle classes of the few scraps they've got left, they can get back to the work of accelerating America's decline and collapse from their luxury compounds in (largely socialist) New Zealand where things are safe and sound thanks to the competent leadership they enjoy.

Of course, it doesn't matter that the polls continue to show that the majority of Americans wish to continue the lockdown. When did what they want for themselves ever matter? No, best that the Fortune 100 companies dictate to us in the hoi polloi how we will live. Best keep astroturfing at the state capitol buildings to keep up the appearance that there is a vigorous desire amongst the common folks to get back to the meat packing plants to fulfill America's gnawing hunger for dinosaur-shaped chicken breast patty fritters. After all, this is the unalienable right that God Himself has granted them and who are we mere mortals to stand in their way?
Really funny and right on!
Although I don't think your post will foment much useful discourse a little levity once in a while is much appeciated
Thanks
 
Silence,
So your argument is that since we pay taxes and have to obey traffic signs, we might as well just go full blown Chinese style totalitarian?

Excuse me if I find that less than compelling
Of course not, but I didn't suggest anything remotely hyperbolic (you provided that ;) ).

Maybe I'll try this from another angle: Is it the policies themselves that you take issue with or is it the lack of compelling data on COVID-19 (perceived or otherwise)?

Stated another way, is there a scenario where you would support the policies in the face of a public health threat (other than COVID-19)? If so, what standard should be used to determine which ones are the truly real and serious vs those that are deep state false flags designed to bring us into Chinese totalitarianism? Or should compliance in the face of any public health threat always be voluntary? Contagions be damned!
 
I agree with you on this Eric.
Maybe re-read what I wrote?
Supporting power for power's sake is not ok. Police / government have AND display power - they do not have proper sense (much of the time).
"Free" is self trust.
Restrained (as Silence seems to support) is leaning or depending on strengths Silence can not alone display or control.
Not even in his own mind (my opinion). He will support that which shows power first - facts probably do not matter.
We'd probably need to start with a working definition of "facts" and how one comes to know something as "fact".
 
Maybe I'll try this from another angle: Is it the policies themselves that you take issue with or is it the lack of compelling data on COVID-19 (perceived or otherwise)?

Stated another way, is there a scenario where you would support the policies in the face of a public health threat (other than COVID-19)? If so, what standard should be used to determine which ones are the truly real and serious vs those that are deep state false flags designed to bring us into Chinese totalitarianism? Or should compliance in the face of any public health threat always be voluntary? Contagions be damned!
It's the policies. The data is already compelling.

We know that children are virtually not at risk and that younger healthy adults are at minimum risk. It is the elderly and serious sick that are at risk.
There is no ambiguity in the data.

Additionally, we know that the current policy of "shelter at home" is destroying the economy. We also know that it causing people to become unhealthy and even die because a) they can't their doctor and b) they have been afraid to go to the hospital. We also know that psychiatric prescriptions are up 25% and that drug ODs and suicides are up significantly.

Then there's the damage to civil liberties - less quantifiable, but not without meaning.

So I have no idea what you're hung up on. The path forward is clear cut as it has been for more than a month. Open up the country and isolate the elderly and chronically ill. The cost of not doing far outweighs the cost of "staying the course".
 
There will be no freedom for those who love the health and safety of themselves and their families, friends, and neighbors...
That would be their choice though... to "live as though they aren't free." Your physical health is not the only level of health with regards to life (at every level of life). To be captive to that "fear of physical death" and therefore, justify global lockdown that is certain to destroy everyone's reason to live in the first place is truly indefensible and/or utterly ignorant. To make an argument that there is all and only a binary choice, "science" (pick your version by the way) vs greed is the type of argument the mindless would engage and sadly, there are far too many of these types running around on this planet. In fact, if the US had popular vote vs the electoral college, the mindless would have already won... in the US at least.

There are those who fear utterly controls and then there are those who have learned there's nothing to fear. It's easy to spot which is which.
 
Last edited:
There are people telling on people for working right now. They have no idea what that person or their family which they are trying to provide for are going through. I’ve never been in a physical fight in my entire life but I believe I could come close to killing somebody for telling on me for working if my family’s welfare depended upon it. In the United States of America, people are telling on their fellow citizens for working. Disgusting.
 
There are people telling on people for working right now. They have no idea what that person or their family which they are trying to provide for are going through. I’ve never been in a physical fight in my entire life but I believe I could come close to killing somebody for telling on me for working if my family’s welfare depended upon it. In the United States of America, people are telling on their fellow citizens for working. Disgusting.
Think about the possibility that this "virus" has been weaponized for this very reason.

Consider, also, that so many people (at least here in the US) who would normally be standing up against this lock down insanity are instead, siding with the insanity, all and only because they hate those they perceive represent an alternative to their own political views and/or ideologies... those who, also, have achieved a position of "power" and/or "authority" or may achieve such some time in the near future?

This is the current situation and there's a single factor that is at root (above all other factors) - those who have allowed themselves to detach from any semblance of soul and those who strive to retain such.

The body doesn't have a soul, the soul has a body. None of this has to have anything to do with religion... it has everything to do with the nature and science of being.
 
It's the policies. The data is already compelling.

We know that children are virtually not at risk and that younger healthy adults are at minimum risk. It is the elderly and serious sick that are at risk.
There is no ambiguity in the data.

Additionally, we know that the current policy of "shelter at home" is destroying the economy. We also know that it causing people to become unhealthy and even die because a) they can't their doctor and b) they have been afraid to go to the hospital. We also know that psychiatric prescriptions are up 25% and that drug ODs and suicides are up significantly.

Then there's the damage to civil liberties - less quantifiable, but not without meaning.

So I have no idea what you're hung up on. The path forward is clear cut as it has been for more than a month. Open up the country and isolate the elderly and chronically ill. The cost of not doing far outweighs the cost of "staying the course".
Thanks and I understand quite well your position on the evidence/data as it relates to COVID-19. That said your conclusions are your own and there are equally compelling perspectives that contradict yours that also include data, both empirical and anecdotal (as you've provided.) You may very well be right Eric. I don't know, but I don't find your perspective and authority more compelling than any other thoughtful person's. I mean no offense by that either.

You didn't answer my core question though, and perhaps that was purposeful? Again, I'm curious to know if there is any scenario, forgetting our current reality, where by you would support the policies? Is it truly the policies themselves or is it their use in THIS pandemic? I think the real issue here is how we, as a society, determine who's authority is to be used when making these decisions. Who, or what group, is responsible for assessing/evaluating an emerging novel virus, determining the severity of the threat, and finally to determine the best societal course of action? There will always be those who disagree with the policies. So is the answer to never have policies at all? Extreme libertarianism (i.e., chaos)?

Thoughts?
 
Thanks and I understand quite well your position on the evidence/data as it relates to COVID-19. That said your conclusions are your own and there are equally compelling perspectives that contradict yours that also include data, both empirical and anecdotal (as you've provided.) You may very well be right Eric. I don't know, but I don't find your perspective and authority more compelling than any other thoughtful person's. I mean no offense by that either.

You didn't answer my core question though, and perhaps that was purposeful? Again, I'm curious to know if there is any scenario, forgetting our current reality, where by you would support the policies? Is it truly the policies themselves or is it their use in THIS pandemic? I think the real issue here is how we, as a society, determine who's authority is to be used when making these decisions. Who, or what group, is responsible for assessing/evaluating an emerging novel virus, determining the severity of the threat, and finally to determine the best societal course of action? There will always be those who disagree with the policies. So is the answer to never have policies at all? Extreme libertarianism (i.e., chaos)?

Thoughts?
Well, I totally disagree with you.

If you go to doctor A, with a bad infection in your leg, and he says he will give you powerful antibiotics and you'll be ok in time - and then you go to Dr B for second opinion, and he says it's too late for antibiotics, he must amputate the leg, then you have a difference of opinions in an serious and uncertain situation and a reasonable person might make the tough decision to have the leg amputated.

However if Dr C says that the only solution is to amputate your head to protect your brain from the infection, then we have crossed the threshold into madness. We are well beyond a matter of a difference of opinion.

Unless you don't understand what the result of cutting off your head would be; which is where I think you are with regards to the damage to the economy, the healthcare system (for non-covid illnesses) and civil liberties/social unrest.
 
Last edited:
Well, I totally disagree with you.

If you go to doctor A, with a bad infection in you leg, and he says will give you powerful antibiotics and you'll be ok in time - and then you go to Dr B for second opinion, and he says it's too late for antibiotics, he must amputate the leg, then you have a difference of opinions in an serious and uncertain situation and a reasonable person might make the tough decision to have the leg amputated.

However if Dr C says that the only solution is to amputate your head to protect your brain from the infection, then we have crossed the threshold into madness. We are well beyond a matter of a difference of opinion.

Unless you don't understand what the result of cutting off your head would be; which is where I think you are with regards to the damage to the economy, the healthcare system (for non-covid illnesses) and civil liberties/social unrest.
Absolutely brilliant post - this should be read by word for word on national TV all day, every day and night.
 
Okay, so what I know, in felines if you bring in an asymptomatic cat (looks all fine) & just let it run with your other cats, it will first kill ALL the baby kittens. They have no immune system yet. Then it will kill the adults. The adults that do live become asymptomatic as well. Many people will pet out that cat to a single cat home. That is wrong. You have to put it down. It can NEVER be cured. It will always be a silent carrier. I would always quarantine then PCR test and wait 14 to 30 days before I'd let a cat run around the house w/the others. No, I'm not the crazy cat lady (I only have 3 cats right now). They are rare out of Russia (Peterbald breed).
 
All,
I would encourage you to look into an organization named "Avaaz". Antonia Staats - the married woman that Ferguson was breaking his own shelter at home polices to bang - is a major figure in Avaaz. One should never underestimate the power of pussy on men who are ordinarily unable to obtain it (or at least not obtain it in high quantity and quality). It looks like the classic intel "honey trap" to me. Ferguson probably already had leanings towards Avaaz thinking anyhow. Ferguson and Fauci were in communication. I think we need to consider Avaaz's influence on how covid is being presented to the public and related policies.

The Avaaz Facebook page is especially enlightening. Some people here might even like it and take it seriously. It's all green new deal stuff. Globalism and socialism. Many propaganda posts about how after covid we can go vegetarian, eliminate fossil fuels, become socialists, be one world under one government. It is clear that they want to destroy the current societal structure and replace it with a radical utopian vision.
 
Last edited:
Top