COVID-19 'Pandemic'

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Spanish-Flu-pandemic-of-1918/
“I had a little bird
its name was Enza
I opened the window,
And in-flu-enza.”
During the pandemic of 1918/19, over 50 million people died worldwide and a quarter of the British population were affected. The death toll was 228,000 in Britain alone. Global mortality rate is not known, but is estimated to have been between 10% to 20% of those who were infected.

What's the Spanish flu got to do with the Chinese flu?

Stop scaremongering. It's people like you making people afraid to go out, even to go to the hospital. You should be ashamed.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,196
11,038
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

What's the Spanish flu got to do with the Chinese flu?

Stop scaremongering. It's people like you making people afraid to go out, even to go to the hospital. You should be ashamed.
What other Global Pandemic do you suggest we use for comparison? Do what you will, as there's an ocean between Europe and North American with travel restrictions in place.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

What other Global Pandemic do you suggest we use for comparison?

Not one with a 10%-20% death rate.

Do what you will

Oh, thank you. I will do. If I go to to the beach at Southport tomorrow - which I'm now allowed to do - I'll thorougly enjoy myself. I've not been to Southport for years.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

We closed the economy to make it a statistical blip as opposed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

Nowhere near as lethal as Spanish flu. Our healthcare abilities have improved in the last 100 years but you'd never know that listening to the Chicken Littles. 100 years ago TB was a death sentence, we did not have any antibiotics, maternal death rate was 400 per 100,000 births, today it's almost zero, 100 years ago infant mortality was many times what it is today. Equating Wuflu to Spanish flu is silly.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

Peppa Pig has coronavirus:







 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

TEXAS REPORTS HIGHEST SINGLE-DAY RISE IN CORONAVIRUS CASES AS STATE CONTINUES TO PUSH AHEAD WITH REOPENING

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-repo...-state-continues-push-ahead-reopening-1504659

Two weeks after Texas Governor Greg Abbott began reopening the economy, the southern state on Saturday reported 1,801 new confirmed coronavirus infections marking its single-highest rise in cases since the beginning of the pandemic
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'



This week on "So What You're Saying Is..." hosted by Peter Whittle, the founder and director of The New Culture Forum think-tank and former deputy leader of Ukip: Historian Dr. David Starkey argues that a calamitous series of events and decisions caused a panicked British government to recklessly abandon its sensible coronavirus plan for one that is likely to harm the nation far more than the virus itself.

Comparing this virus with historical pandemics Starkey believes the dire situation we are encountering today has a different cause. Earlier pandemics such as the Black Death eradicated up to half of the population of Europe. In contrast, although it is profoundly tragic on a personal level to the individuals and families it afflicts, coronavirus is nowhere near as devastating on a population-wide level as previous pandemics. Consequently, Starkey argues, Britain was correct to initially follow a similar path to Sweden which was far more relaxed than elsewhere in Europe.

This approach suited Prime MInister Boris Johnson's libertarian attitude and personality. But on a single weekend there was a calamitous confluence of events and decisions that caused the Tory government to panic (Northwick Park hospital overwhelmed, Imperial College modelling showing potential 500,000 deaths etc.) and enforce an extreme lockdown without any plan to deal with the epidemic. It was simply a goal to protect the NHS.

Protect the NHS: The Tory Government, says Dr. Starkey, was desperate not to be seen as responsible for the NHS being overwhelmed. Eager to prove to the traditional Labour "Red Wall" that the Conservative Party really was their natural home, the British government prioritised the NHS's capacity to deal with Covid-19 over everything else - but disastrously this included its treatment of cancer patients etc. A bizarre and unprecdented abandoning of the Hippocratic oath that we have not seen in other countries, argues Starkey.

 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

Social distancing corrodes society

Life without human interaction is hardly life at all.


TOM SLATER
DEPUTY EDITOR
17th May 2020
Spiked



‘No hugging new friends until coronavirus vaccine is found, says Matt Hancock’, read a headline in The Times on Tuesday. If you want an indication of how mad things have become in corona Britain, it doesn’t get much clearer than that.

The health secretary had been asked when Brits might be able to embrace people outside their own household. ‘Well really, to get to the point where this is totally sorted’, he burbled, ‘it’s when we have a treatment or a vaccine’. Hancock said one could be ‘on stream’ by the autumn. But most say it would take at least 18 months, and we might not ever find one at all.

It’s hard to work out what is more absurd here: that a government minister now feels emboldened to decree that there will be no hugging until further notice, or that he thinks such advice will actually hold.

This isn’t the first time Hancock has ruled so definitively on intimate matters. Just after the lockdown began he told couples living apart to ‘make your choice and stick with it’ – that is, either move in together or put up with not seeing each other at all.

This effective ban on sex outside of live-in relationships is particularly bad news for single people, denied any of the usual social settings even to meet other people, let alone have sex with them. Does Matt Cockblock really expect millions of young, sociable people to remain celibate for months if not years on end?

Yes, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. When the lockdown began and the social-distancing measures were brought in it was made clear we were going to have to give up some of our most basic liberties for the sake of the greater good. And as tough as not seeing friends and family or being able to go out can be, most were happy to lump it for what we understandably assumed would be a relatively short period of time.

Back then, of course, these restrictions were presented as short-term measures, designed to flatten the curve of infections and deaths and stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. But now, as the PM’s non-easing of restrictions last Sunday made clear, the lockdown and extreme social-distancing regime is now the means through which the government plans to manage the outbreak indefinitely.

In the fight against Covid, trade-offs and judgement calls have to be made. But while the debate so far has almost exclusively (and misleadingly) pitted protecting the economy against saving lives, the quality of those lives seems barely to get a look in.

And if we’re talking about quality of life, being able to be close to, visit and perhaps even touch (!) other people should be far higher up the agenda than being able to go to garden centres or play tennis – two cherished freedoms gifted back to us this past week.

Even as more businesses are allowed to open up and more people are allowed back to work, it seems we are going to be expected to remain in our two-metre bubbles for the long haul. That the economy cannot remain in its induced coma until a vaccine is found is accepted by (almost) all sides of the lockdown debate. But Hancock’s comments suggest he thinks social life can be kept in its coma easily.

It can’t. Society is not just a stacking up of households and families, who occasionally cross paths in the shop or on the street. Our relationships beyond our flats and houses matter. And having the opportunity to rub shoulders, and sometimes other things, with strangers is a lot of what makes life worth living. London, certainly, is almost a parody of itself now it has been reduced to homes and food shops alone.

If Covid-19 killed much of what it touched, then this indefinite forcefielding might be justified. But while debate rages among epidemiologists about the exact fatality rate, we already know the vast majority of those who catch coronavirus have mild or moderate symptoms. Many who catch it won’t know they had it at all. Only really the elderly and infirm are under serious threat. And as chief medical officer Chris Whitty reminded us recently, ‘even in the most high-risk group, the majority of people who get this infection do not die’.

This level of social distancing cannot go on indefinitely. It will break down, more than it already has. As much as people tell the pollsters that, if anything, the current regime is too soft-touch, many are already bending if not breaking the rules on meeting friends and family, weighing the risks, being careful, and deciding for themselves. And it’s not just among the supposedly selfish young, either. Older people want to see their kids and grandkids and to make the most of the time they have left.

Meanwhile, imagine what a year or more of social distancing might do to a society like ours, that is already far too fearful and atomised. A study in 2014 named the UK the ‘loneliness capital of Europe’, with Brits the least likely to know our neighbours or have strong friendships. As an Office for National Statistics bulletin on social capital put it in February, just before the crisis hit, ‘we are engaging less with our neighbours but more with social media… we feel safer walking alone after dark in our neighbourhoods, but more recently fewer of us feel like we belong to them’.

We need to save life. We need to make sure we don’t completely trash the economy. But we also need each other, and at closer range than the state-approved two metres. That those in power don’t seem to recognise this is alarming. Social distancing cannot become the new normal. It corrodes society – and the soul.


https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/17/social-distancing-corrodes-society/
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

You can say that about ANY doctor, you idiot.


I could, but I'm asking about THIS specific doctor. Why should we take his words as something to take seriously? What makes him different?

I mean, sure he's a doctor of history and he's got opinions about the history of pandemics and how it's different now from then, but what makes him more qualified to dictate policy with this stuff than, say, an epidemiologist or virologist or any other specialist medical doctor when it comes to the virus?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

I could, but I'm asking about THIS specific doctor. Why should we take his words as something to take seriously? What makes him different?
I mean, sure he's a doctor of history and he's got opinions about the history of pandemics and how it's different now from then, but what makes him more qualified to dictate policy with this stuff than, say, an epidemiologist or virologist or any other specialist medical doctor when it comes to the virus?

He's not dictating policy, unfortunately. He's chatting to Peter Whittle.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,326
9,516
113
Washington DC
Re: COVIDD-19 'Pandemic'

I could, but I'm asking about THIS specific doctor. Why should we take his words as something to take seriously? What makes him different?
I mean, sure he's a doctor of history and he's got opinions about the history of pandemics and how it's different now from then, but what makes him more qualified to dictate policy with this stuff than, say, an epidemiologist or virologist or any other specialist medical doctor when it comes to the virus?
It's called "false equivalency," one of the favorite logical fallacies of the truly stupid.