World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Is this a possible COVID endgame?
Some powerful and compelling posts, Graeme!
Nik wrote: "Some powerful and compelling posts, Graeme!"Thanks, Nik. I have a knack for the plausible, but I'm just a guy watching shadows on a wall and deducing what causes the shadow...
In the mean time - life is good.
Fascinating set of posts, Graeme. Well thought out, astute, logical and highly plausible. Love the shadows on the wall metaphor.
Beau wrote: "Fascinating set of posts, Graeme. Well thought out, astute, logical and highly plausible. Love the shadows on the wall metaphor."Ahhh... the shadows on the wall are a reference to the Allegory of the cave from Plato.
REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegor...
Graeme wrote: "Beau wrote: "Fascinating set of posts, Graeme. Well thought out, astute, logical and highly plausible. Love the shadows on the wall metaphor."Ahhh... the shadows on the wall are a reference to th..."
And what is the lesson of the shadows on the wall?
Graeme wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "So you guys think uber rich people are running the world? You do realize that is Tri-Lateral Commission conspiracy theory's repackaged?"I find the corporate model a useful fram..."
So let us continue using your analogy. Corporations are a fine analogy. So who does the board serve? The actual owners, the stock holders. Stockholders get upset and the board is gone. Boards choose policy, but they answer to the stock holders and there are lots of them. Publicly owned companies are traded and answer to the higher level. So it is not in a vacuum and they are not gods of philosopher kings that do as they please.
For those of you that truly believe there is a conspiracy of elites running the show. Stop and think about this, how do they get away with it? Also think about Occam's Razor. Not the simplest answer usually the correct one, but the actual saying "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
Papaphilly wrote: "And what is the lesson of the shadows on the wall?..."For me specifically, it's that we reason from a limited and incomplete data set.
For the conclusions that I draw, I can only claim that they are what I see and infer, not more than that.
But what that you consider or recognise could possibly be more than you infer?As an aside, my memory of this scene is fading - can anyone recall which book it is in?
Papaphilly wrote: "So let us continue using your analogy. Corporations are a fine analogy. So who does the board serve? The actual owners, the stock holders. Stockholders get upset and the board is gone. Boards choose policy, but they answer to the stock holders and there are lots of them. Publicly owned companies are traded and answer to the higher level. So it is not in a vacuum and they are not gods of philosopher kings that do as they please..."[1] Board seats require shares in the company and those with the most shares will dominate the board. Yes, companies are still responsive the other shareholders...
The analogy breaks down when applied to society as a whole. The point of the analogy is that the owners (plutocrats) have the most power in our society and they dominate the setting of policy.
As a voter, at most, we'll get to vote on policies defined by other people, and the set of available policies you get to vote on is a tightly constrained set.
For example did you get to vote on the Patriot Act and it's evisceration of the 4th Amendment? No, it's bipartisan and still in operation.... and this 1000+ page document showed up in less than 2 weeks after 9/11. It was either written in great haste, or was sitting in a draw as a pre-set policy waiting for the opportunity to be deployed. My guess is the latter.
[2] Our current rulers operate in a constrained environment. There are institutions such as the US constitution (and it's definition of constrained government) that curtail their operations.
Due to these operational constraints, our rulers are not in a position to do 'as they please,' ... yet.
(I suspect the use of 'private islands,' is a direct outcome of the presence of broad societal level constraints on the ruling framework).
The number one goal of psychopaths is to attain a clear field of action without accountability. To act on every whim without any negative consequence or repercussion to themselves. Pure self-interest all the time without constraint.
It is a natural goal of psychopathy to dismantle the operation of constraints.
Hence the eradication of the US constitution in all its goals and methods is a natural and urgent target for those who would rule us at their whim, and has been since that document's inception.
On the question of Corporate Boards, provided the corporate profits keep rolling in, control of the Board is often achievable with as little as 20% stock holding. The bulk of stock-holders do not want to see a revolution that causes them to lose profits, and even worse, capital value as the stock tanks. Nobody cares about most things as long as the value keeps up. Nobody throws away a well performing wallet addition.
Most shareholders don't hold enough shares to have a vote. Most of the voting shareholders are board members, creditors, and index funds. The motivations of those three groups are obvious.
Papaphilly wrote: "For those of you that truly believe there is a conspiracy of elites running the show. Stop and think about this, how do they get away with it? Also think about Occam's Razor. Not the simplest answer usually the correct one, but the actual saying "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"...."There is no conspiracy.
Defined: "A secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal." REF: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti....
As these elements are all out in the open - hence not secret - there is no conspiracy.
In the West, we have the WEF/Davos crowd (our plutocrats) and their proposed 'Great Reset,' where we will 'own nothing and be happy.'
Consider 'Central Bank Digital Currencies,' which are already in the development and pilot phases. China trialled one recently which times out after a month. I.e. you have to spend it before it disappears (enforced consumption and no ability to save = perpetual dependency).
CDBCs are perfectly suited to providing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) with the UBI currently canvassed within sections of the US political establishment.
The proposed changes will all be implemented lawfully, and in the open. Just like the Nazi, and Marxist (Stalin, Mao) regimes operated in the 20th century. The law is changed (defining the law is a key sovereign power) and tyranny is lawfully implemented.
The Great Reset will (if it occurs) occur legally and will use existing law (bankruptcy) to swap debt for equity. This will result in the elimination of the current world debt, or at the very least, debts in the West along with the US dollar. The price will be the shift of ownership of all real property to those at the top of society (our plutocratic rulers).
Anyone without a job will go on UBI and will receive a monthly stipend of CBDC from the local central bank. If you have a job, you'll be paid in CDBC somewhat higher than UBI, and you'll get to use your CDBC to rent your shelter, clothing and transport from those who own those items.
What's driving this.
[1] The current monetary system is an infinitely growing debt pile that can't be serviced, and is now at 'end of life.'
[2] If the monetary system experiences an uncontrolled collapse, the Plutocrats will be swept up too and put at risk. Their own self interest demands that they put the monetary system into a controlled demolition and replace it with something that is more useful - CBDCs are the preferred solution and are currently being developed and trialled to be made ready for use.
Just noting that US national debt is above $28T. Japan's national debt is so high that if the interest rate was 2% or higher debt service payments would consume the whole government budget... There's a reason why interest rates all round the world are as low as they are, even with the shrinkage of interest rates the interests payments on all the debt in the world is measured in $T's per year and is still growing as the world's debt pile is growing.
The architecture of our monetary system makes it completely unsustainable. It's failure is a mathematical certainty. The people who (exercise the foundational sovereign power of monetary definition) sponsor the next monetary system will inherit the world.
The WEF/Davos crowd are currently publicly positioning themselves to do exactly that.
An easily accessible summary of the 'Great Reset,' is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD-io...
Papaphilly wrote: "For those of you that truly believe there is a conspiracy of elites running the show. Stop and think about this, how do they get away with it? Also think about Occam's Razor. Not the simplest answer usually the correct one, but the actual saying "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"...."I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor.
I think one of the challenges we face in the modern world is that the term 'Conspiracy Theory,' ends up getting used as a rhetorical device to discount examination of actual public domain agendas.
I don't know 'Russell Brand,' but I found this video on YouTube where he interviews Edward Snowdon, who makes the same point I'm making.
The 'conspiracies,' are out in the open.
REF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0zAJ...
All I'm really saying is that our current crop of powerful, wealthy, plutocrats are doing all they can with their vast resources to maintain and grow their own power and wealth.
And they are doing that out in the open, in public view.
It is clearly demonstrable that we live in a society with heavy concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a relatively small number of people (and their families, clans, etc). In essence, say, less than 10,000 people would cover the uppermost cohort.
That concentration of power creates a steep hierarchy between the people at the top and those at the bottom. A classic pyramid structure with the many poor and dispossessed at the bottom of society.
To maintain this structure requires constant work to manage the many to support the few. All techniques (violence, deception, bribery, etc) are on the table.
Graeme wrote: "Ahhh... the shadows on the wall are a reference to the Allegory of the cave from Plato.
REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegor..."
About 30 years ago, I read some Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and somebody who lived in a barrel whose name escapes me. I'd completely forgotten about the shadows on the wall but after clicking on the link it all came back to me.
Thanks, Graeme. I won't forget it again.
REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegor..."
About 30 years ago, I read some Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and somebody who lived in a barrel whose name escapes me. I'd completely forgotten about the shadows on the wall but after clicking on the link it all came back to me.
Thanks, Graeme. I won't forget it again.
Papaphilly wrote: "So let us continue using your analogy. Corporations are a fine analogy. So who does the board serve? The actual owners, the stock holders. Stockholders get upset and the board is gone. Boards choose policy, but they answer to the stock holders and there are lots of them. Publicly owned companies are traded and answer to the higher level. So it is not in a vacuum and they are not gods of philosopher kings that do as they please."
The little shareholders (Joe public) are irrelevant. They attend the AGMs, are given drinks and nibbles, and then go home and are forgotten about. The major shareholders are the ones who call the shots. And the same small group of people are the major shareholders of all of the world's biggest companies.
The little shareholders (Joe public) are irrelevant. They attend the AGMs, are given drinks and nibbles, and then go home and are forgotten about. The major shareholders are the ones who call the shots. And the same small group of people are the major shareholders of all of the world's biggest companies.
Graeme wrote: "The WEF/Davos crowd are currently publicly positioning themselves to do exactly that."
More great posts, Graeme. You might have written some very well received works of fiction but you should also write some factual political books.
I'm not going to say that I'm proud to be a Westerner because I didn't have a say in it, but I've always been grateful to be one. That is starting to change with the rise of the WEF/Davos crowd. To me, they have all the negative traits of Russia and China but with an added layer of hypocrisy. An absolutely awful ideology and a thoroughly disgusting group of people.
More great posts, Graeme. You might have written some very well received works of fiction but you should also write some factual political books.
I'm not going to say that I'm proud to be a Westerner because I didn't have a say in it, but I've always been grateful to be one. That is starting to change with the rise of the WEF/Davos crowd. To me, they have all the negative traits of Russia and China but with an added layer of hypocrisy. An absolutely awful ideology and a thoroughly disgusting group of people.
Good points about 'conspiracy theorists', Graeme.
American friends, you know how you get worked up when people call you 'racists' for not agreeing with critical race theory and the like? I agree with you. It's absurd, isn't it?
Well, in the covid debate, the blanket terms 'conspiracy theorist' and 'anti-vax' show the equivalent levels of stupidity.
American friends, you know how you get worked up when people call you 'racists' for not agreeing with critical race theory and the like? I agree with you. It's absurd, isn't it?
Well, in the covid debate, the blanket terms 'conspiracy theorist' and 'anti-vax' show the equivalent levels of stupidity.
Diogenes. Probably played for Panathinaikos.Interesting to follow Graeme’s elaborate insight, much of which I’m agreeable with. At some stage I might add my two kopeck
Graeme wrote: "All I'm really saying is that our current crop of powerful, wealthy, plutocrats are doing all they can with their vast resources to maintain and grow their own power and wealth.And they are doing that out in the open, in public view.
It is clearly demonstrable that we live in a society with heavy concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a relatively small number of people (and their families, clans, etc). In essence, say, less than 10,000 people would cover the uppermost cohort.
..."
Even if they do it in the open, but hide their intentions, it is a conspiracy. If you mean everything above board and voted, is called policy. Even Hitler was voted into office. Not all policy is good policy.
Graeme wrote: "I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor..."I am glad, then you understand why I discount the whole idea of a small group of families pushing the entire world into slavery however you want to define it. It would take too many people to make it happen and with human foibles and frailties it would be exposed to the world. I always say large groups of people are still scary to deal with. It is not that I do not agree that there are those that would like to try, they still have to depend of too many others and that is where it always breaks down.
Beau wrote: "Good points about 'conspiracy theorists', Graeme.American friends, you know how you get worked up when people call you 'racists' for not agreeing with critical race theory and the like? I agree w..."
Calling one when they have consistently shown to be anti-vax and/or conspiracy theorist is nothing more than calling a spade a spade. I have said plenty of time I personally have respect for thsoe that walked off their job than rather get the jab because they put their money where their mouth is. I think they are foolish, but that is their right.
I have been hearing about government conspiracies for as long as I can remember. It is always something that will bring freedom to the end. Yet, in the end it amounts to nothing as it will again. Trilateral Commission, Illuminati, The Fifth Column, Alien Overlords, Cthulhu...it is always something, especially when times are trying.
So here is the bet, I will bet anyone an adult beverage that we will be arguing about this in five years; still be here and nothing major changes.
Governments are not competent enough and those Uber-wealthy psychopaths are not numerous enough nor big enough to make it happen.
I've also heard about government conspiracies for my whole life. A lot of it is probably bogus. But I remember watching President Clinton apologize for the Tuskegee Experiment. Wasn't that a conspiracy? Iran-Contra? CREEP? MK-ULTRA?I discount the likelihood of the Reptilians and Free Masons secretly controlling the world. I also discount arguments that rely on the ad hominem of calling the source of the opposing argument a, "conspiracy theorist". Conspiracies happen. The tough part is winnowing the wheat from the chaff.
Nik wrote: "Diogenes. Probably played for Panathinaikos.Interesting to follow Graeme’s elaborate insight, much of which I’m agreeable with. At some stage I might add my two kopeck"
You and I, do seem to have a lot of common ground.
Papaphilly wrote: "Even if they do it in the open, but hide their intentions, it is a conspiracy. If you mean everything above board and voted, is called policy. Even Hitler was voted into office. Not all policy is good policy...."It's 'kinda marketing...' - the distinction between agenda and conspiracy. Every corporation with something to sell doesn't begin an advertising campaign with the statement ... "We want to make a profit" ... before they extol the virtues of their product or service, they just 'sell the benefits.'
The Great Reset campaign is no different.
Caveat Emptor is always good and timeless advice.
Papaphilly wrote: "Graeme wrote: "I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor..."I am glad, then you understand why I discount the whole idea of a small group of families pushing the entire world into slavery however you want t..."
Papaphilly, I agree with every single point you just made here.
For me there is a dynamic equilibrium between the rulers and the ruled, and it's not just simple 'oppression.' I think it is more like a symbiosis, but there are various 'equilibrium,' states between the rulers and the ruled which are more or less stable.
We have been in a stable state for some time, and I think we will have some sort of tectonic shift in society within the next 5 to 15 years to a new equilibrium. Of the potential future equilibrium states, some are far better than others with a worst case scenario of everyone dies.
That said, I think that we will survive and potentially do quite well as a species and as a civilization, but the drive towards greater control of all things which seems to be very present today is a deep concern for me.
Papaphilly...P.S. I completed a B.A. with a Philosophy major (Maths minor) before diving into computer science and my profession.
The upshot is that I'm an 'Epistemological Pessimist.' I.e. I think we really know quite a lot less than we like to believe we know.
Which is not a popular position to hold in this age of 'certainty.'
Papaphilly wrote: "Governments are not competent enough and those Uber-wealthy psychopaths are not numerous enough nor big enough to make it happen...."My personal position is that 'Globalism,' is hubristic over-reach, and as everyone knows - hubris breeds nemesis.
So, the very act of reaching for globalism will produce counter-reactions that defeat it.
Papaphilly wrote: "I have been hearing about government conspiracies for as long as I can remember. It is always something that will bring freedom to the end. Yet, in the end it amounts to nothing as it will again. Trilateral Commission, Illuminati, The Fifth Column, Alien Overlords, Cthulhu...it is always something, especially when times are trying...."The thing is, 'Conspiracy Theories,' are a real thing in and of themselves. I personally find the whole category to be a interesting phenomena that shares many characteristics with religious and political fundamentalism and cult style processes.
The other thing is that the 'truth,' is hidden by all the 'distraction,' and frankly if I wanted to hide the truth, constructing and propagating a conspiracy theory that touched on it could be a viable strategy.
From my first book ...
Section 14.4.1 False Flag Media Posts
Summary: Normalcy bias and the poisoning the well logical fallacy.
[1] This tactic is based on exploiting the cognitive normalcy bias, and the poisoning the well logical fallacy. It relies on the target population’s susceptibility for belief in the content of mainstream and authoritative belief systems, and resistance to change once a belief has been established.
[2] Secured facts that must be kept secret are published into the mass media in forms that will produce mainstream derision and rejection of their central tenets.
[3] Published secured facts should be altered in small details to enable the disassociation of belief from similar ideas and memes to ensure that whole tranches of secured discourse become mainstream taboos.
[4] There will always be a small subset of the target population who will believe the posts. The small population of believers adds to the strength of the tactic as they are able to be labeled as ‘fringe’ and ‘other’ in mainstream discourse. Thus, reinforcing the rejection of the central tenets of the secured facts by the target population.
[5] In this way, the target population is inoculated from ever believing that the secured fact is true, and will continue to act as if the secured fact is false.
Detail: Definitions and worked examples
The details of this tactic with worked examples is described below.
[REDACTED]
- Excerpt of Section 14, Strategic Influence and Information Disruption, Shadowstone Covert PSYOPS Manual
Point [4] would be exampled with the seeding and propagation of a conspiracy theory to hide a secured fact.
I don't think anyone knows where we shall be in 5 years, let alone 50, but I suspect "just in time" and "globalized sourcing" are going to take hits because despite your view on how dangerous Covid is, it has demonstrated that that philosophy has severe problems. I don't think the Covid problem will last all that long, although out will be endemic, but I think the world economies have been battered with too much debt that we can't find a way out of this, especially if governments take irrational views on climate change.
Papaphilly wrote: "Calling one when they have consistently shown to be anti-vax and/or conspiracy theorist is nothing more than calling a spade a spade...."
Last week, I posted a link to an Australian minister calling anyone who disagrees with vaccine mandates 'anti vax', even if they're fully vaccinated against covid. Then you have the huge group of people (myself included) who have taken numerous vaccines over the years but don't want to take the covid ones because we don't regard the illness as a threat to us and also don't want to take a vaccine that hasn't yet completed its full clinical trials.
Are you sure these groups should be described as 'anti vax'?
Regarding the 'conspiracy theories', considering the available evidence (which you always choose to ignore), I think they'd be better described as 'conspiracy realities'.
Why is it that you are unable to distinguish between the different groups of people who don't accept your view that the covid vaccines are some sort of divine elixir?
Why do you consistently ignore blue-chip data showing the vaccines' poor efficacy and turn a blind eye to question marks over their side effects?
Why do you not accept that people have a right to decide what goes into their own bodies and instead demand that everyone else has to do what Papaphilly tells them to do just because he's had the frighteners put on him by Joey B and his mates' propoganda, when anyone who takes the time to examine their arguments can see they're complete nonsense?
Last week, I posted a link to an Australian minister calling anyone who disagrees with vaccine mandates 'anti vax', even if they're fully vaccinated against covid. Then you have the huge group of people (myself included) who have taken numerous vaccines over the years but don't want to take the covid ones because we don't regard the illness as a threat to us and also don't want to take a vaccine that hasn't yet completed its full clinical trials.
Are you sure these groups should be described as 'anti vax'?
Regarding the 'conspiracy theories', considering the available evidence (which you always choose to ignore), I think they'd be better described as 'conspiracy realities'.
Why is it that you are unable to distinguish between the different groups of people who don't accept your view that the covid vaccines are some sort of divine elixir?
Why do you consistently ignore blue-chip data showing the vaccines' poor efficacy and turn a blind eye to question marks over their side effects?
Why do you not accept that people have a right to decide what goes into their own bodies and instead demand that everyone else has to do what Papaphilly tells them to do just because he's had the frighteners put on him by Joey B and his mates' propoganda, when anyone who takes the time to examine their arguments can see they're complete nonsense?
Nik wrote: "Diogenes. Probably played for Panathinaikos.
Interesting to follow Graeme’s elaborate insight, much of which I’m agreeable with. At some stage I might add my two kopeck"
That's the fellow. Don't recall him playing for Panathinaikos though ;) Now Socrates...
I'd love to hear your own insight, Nik.
Interesting to follow Graeme’s elaborate insight, much of which I’m agreeable with. At some stage I might add my two kopeck"
That's the fellow. Don't recall him playing for Panathinaikos though ;) Now Socrates...
I'd love to hear your own insight, Nik.
Beau, you keep ranting on about vaccine side effects. Data please. Exactly what are they?And I am unaware that anyone is saying you have to take a vaccine. Not to do so is your call. However, should you take that option, others have the right to protect themselves against your higher probability of being able to spread virus. Even if they end up mistaken, they still have the right to exclude the unvaxxed from close social contact. "I'm fine, Jack" may actually represent your status, but others may see that you couldn't care less about others' safety and have the right not to be inflicted on by what they perceive as a danger. Nobody has the right to inflict themselves on others when others do not want them.
J. wrote: "I've also heard about government conspiracies for my whole life. A lot of it is probably bogus. But I remember watching President Clinton apologize for the Tuskegee Experiment. Wasn't that a conspi..."Except there are conspiracy theorists. There is a far difference between the conspiracies you mentioned and the Trilateral commission type horse manure. the part that drives me up the wall the most is that the really great conspiracies almost sound like they could work.
BTW, all the conspiracies you mentioned were found out and failed. The Tuskegee Experiment ran the longest, but was leaked and stopped. That was probably the most devastating to humanity. Yet this also makes my point for me, governments are not smart enough to pull off a large scale conspiracy.
Graeme wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Governments are not competent enough and those Uber-wealthy psychopaths are not numerous enough nor big enough to make it happen...."My personal position is that 'Globalism,' i..."
While it is very efficient and works well, it is non-the-less fragile. It also misses one thing that is very important, the lowest on the economic rung loses. There are lots of them and ignored at ones own peril.
Graeme wrote: "Papaphilly...P.S. I completed a B.A. with a Philosophy major (Maths minor) before diving into computer science and my profession.
The upshot is that I'm an 'Epistemological Pessimist.' I.e. I th..."
That is why people can be so sure they are right and so wrong at the same time.
Graeme wrote: "The thing is, 'Conspiracy Theories,' are a real thing in and of themselves. I personally find the whole category to be a interesting phenomena that shares many characteristics with religious and political fundamentalism and cult style processes. ..."Could not have said it better myself. That is why I discount them, although I really enjoy the further out they go.
Beau wrote: "Why do you consistently ignore blue-chip data showing the vaccines' poor efficacy and turn a blind eye to question marks over their side effects?Why do you not accept that people have a right to decide what goes into their own bodies and instead demand that everyone else has to do what Papaphilly tells them to do just because he's had the frighteners put on him by Joey B and his mates' propoganda, when anyone who takes the time to examine their arguments can see they're complete nonsense? ..."
What poor results? What side effects. Do you understand the side effects are less than what people are dying from?
I have said on more than one occasion I have no problem if one wants to not take the shot, but then stay away from people. Do not go out in public and do not spread or potentially spread the virus. Can you do that?
Re: ConspiraciesAs I see it, conspiracies are real and commonplace. The subject has been tainted by a human tendency to ascribe malicious intent to events based on mere suspicion. An example of this could be the Bildeberg Group. It is an opportunity for the powerful to compare notes and listen to some speakers. In and of itself, that is not a conspiracy, just evidence of group think among the people who run nations. However, people assume that there is an intent to secure power for the group, rather than individuals seeking to enhance their own power.
As for the assumption that conspiracies are inherently short lived; I invite you to consider that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a conspiracy against the legitimate government, which resulted in a coup d'etat.
Re: MK-ULTRA:
We assume that the operation ran for a specific period based on partial financial records, scant personal documents, and victim testimonials which were unearthed years later. The CIA destroyed most of the operational documents. Consequently, we cannot say with any real certainty when or even if it ended. What we can say with certainty is that a disturbingly large number of horrible moments have connections to the operation and its personnel.
Ian – the distinguished scientist who denies that every action has a reaction.
Not content with the idea of being given support to isolate should you wish, you demand that everyone else join you in shutting down their lives too, just so you can feel even safer, regardless of the consequences to other people’s health, wellbeing and livelihood.
Later, when the vaccine arrives to provide you with an added layer of protection, you demand that anyone else who wants to participate in society takes the shot too, so that you can feel extra, extra safe, despite the fact that said vaccines haven’t completed their full clinical trials.
And then, to top it all, you have the brass neck, the sheer audacity, to say that I adopt an ‘alright Jack’ approach! Have you any self-awareness at all? Here’s an idea – if you still don’t feel safe, stay at home to spread your doom and gloom, and stop dictating how other people should live.
On potential vaccine side effects, read the bloody posts to understand what I’m saying. Can you do that too, Papaphilly?
Not content with the idea of being given support to isolate should you wish, you demand that everyone else join you in shutting down their lives too, just so you can feel even safer, regardless of the consequences to other people’s health, wellbeing and livelihood.
Later, when the vaccine arrives to provide you with an added layer of protection, you demand that anyone else who wants to participate in society takes the shot too, so that you can feel extra, extra safe, despite the fact that said vaccines haven’t completed their full clinical trials.
And then, to top it all, you have the brass neck, the sheer audacity, to say that I adopt an ‘alright Jack’ approach! Have you any self-awareness at all? Here’s an idea – if you still don’t feel safe, stay at home to spread your doom and gloom, and stop dictating how other people should live.
On potential vaccine side effects, read the bloody posts to understand what I’m saying. Can you do that too, Papaphilly?
Beau, I asked you for side effects, not potential ones raised by idle speculation. Don't say, read the posts. Just simply say what they are and what the probability of harm is. I have never said that everyone must be vaccinated. I have said that we have a better chance to eliminate the virus and stop it mutating more if everyone got vaccinated, but I have not advocated compulsion. This has nothing to do with doom and gloom - it is simple mathematics, coupled with the view thyat nobopdy feels they really need to get the virus.
Ian, I don't want the vaccine to have any serious side effects because most of my family and friends have taken it, but I think we owe it to everyone to not close down debate on potential side effects. I am not re-posting anything. There's no point because you will go silent on the matter for a few days and then reappear with the same arguments as if nothing had happened. If you want to know about my concerns over potential side effects or how the authorities have attempted to suppress examination of them, reread some of mine and Nik's posts from the last few weeks on the covid thread.
People holding my viewpoint have already sacrificed enough for people holding your viewpoint, and young people have sacrificed even more. If what we've done isn't enough then tough. Stay at home if you still don't feel completely safe. You have no right to demand anything more from anyone.
People holding my viewpoint have already sacrificed enough for people holding your viewpoint, and young people have sacrificed even more. If what we've done isn't enough then tough. Stay at home if you still don't feel completely safe. You have no right to demand anything more from anyone.
As of side effects - myocarditis and pericarditis were officially added to annotations half a year after the rollout.Some countries cancelled circulation of some vaccines because of clogging.
And there are potential/suspected ones, of course, that need to be cleared.
Nik wrote: "As of side effects - myocarditis and pericarditis were officially added to annotations half a year after the rollout.Some countries cancelled circulation of some vaccines because of clogging.
And ..."
Yes, these were noted, but the probability of getting these was extremely low, but these are also relatively common symptoms of those getting the virus. As I understand it, these were mainly associated with the AZ type vaccine but not the mRNA vaccine.
From what I know, Myo and peri - with Pfizer too. And their likelihood (so far announced) is exactly the same as the lethal outcome of corona among kids. Most instances of myo- and peri- are among young males. Now, that’s the known part. There is also a suspected or yet unexplained instances that we all see happen in sports and other sphere. Personally, I’d prefer a serious investigation to confirm or reject their connection to the vaccines were underway.
Beau, sorry to hear you have made those exceptional sacrifices by refusing to be vaccinated. You are saying that those who have refused the vaccination have made more sacrifice than those who have been vaccinated, but then you claim the vaccines are risky. Surely you have the "sacrifice" around the wrong way. The ones who have taken your risk to beat the virus are the ones that have sacrificed. All that I am saying is that if the unvaccinated want to keep the virus alive and are not prepared to make this "sacrifice" or even wear masks then they should keep a good distance from those who have and not potentially vent virus into close proximity to them. Otherwise, they can do what they like and accept the price.What really surprises me is you haven't had another rant against Ardern. She is introducing vaccine passports that will be mandatory for entrance to major events, and a number of interior events. I predict she will become unpopular, not because of the passports but because she will be introducing the virus back into regions that have been free of it for over a year.
Beau wrote: "Ian – the distinguished scientist who denies that every action has a reaction.Not content with the idea of being given support to isolate should you wish, you demand that everyone else join you i..."
You make my point for me. You cannot for the life of you stay away from people when you are a potential vector. You refuse to take the vaccine because of (fill in the blank because the reason will change when your response is nullified). You would rather put at risk people that have medical issues, too young for the vaccine or have poor immune response all in the name of freedom. you seem to have zero issue with burdening someone else's freedom with your self-centeredness as long as it does not affect you.
BTW,
You do not trust government? How about Yale Medical?
https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/201...
Pay particular attention to the idea of wearing the mask. they explain it in very plain language.
PFIZER’S NOVEL COVID-19 ORAL ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT CANDIDATE REDUCED RISK OF HOSPITALIZATION OR DEATH BY 89% IN INTERIM ANALYSIS OF PHASE 2/3 EPIC-HR STUDYThere is hope even if you get the virus.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-rel...
Scout wrote: "PFIZER’S NOVEL COVID-19 ORAL ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT CANDIDATE REDUCED RISK OF HOSPITALIZATION OR DEATH BY 89% IN INTERIM ANALYSIS OF PHASE 2/3 EPIC-HR STUDYThere is hope even if you get the virus.
..."
Similar results to Ivermectin.
I wonder what it costs per treatment.
Ian, unlike your covid arguments, mine never revolve around what’s best for me, they are only ever concerned with the greater good.
Millions (billions?) of people sacrificed their mental, physical and financial wellbeing to lockdown for extended periods of time for the scaredy-cats who couldn’t accept a fraction of 1 percent chance of dying from a flu-like virus. This has had a catastrophic effect on some of the most mentally/ physically fragile and economically vulnerable people, not to mention those whose medical treatments and operations were neglected due to a collective bout of bedwetting over covid.
Until they discovered they were exempt, these people also wore dirty, bacteria-ridden rags over their noses and mouths, restricting their breathing and potentially damaging their health, for the same unselfish reasons.
This was all done to buy the scaredy-cats time until the vaccines were ready to reassure them. Now they’re here, the scaredy-cats are so ‘confident’ about these vaccines, which they blindly support like diehard football fans, that they insist that everyone else has to take them to make them work. The right to bodily autonomy is selfish, is it? Come on, you can’t seriously believe that.
Your Ardern point just goes to show how far your country has fallen. You’ve given away the rights handed down to you over generations for a little temporary safety from a virus with a fraction of 1 percent chance of killing you because some Kiwis are now frightened of their own shadows.
Papaphilly, I’m glad I made your point for you. Somebody’s got to do it.
Why are you linking to studies in favour of masks when you did not comment on the link I posted on the covid thread to the 50+ studies proving that masks are either pointless or even harmful to the wearer?
Scout, most people have a fraction of 1 per cent chance of dying from covid, vaccinated or unvaccinated. The only group who has less than a 90% chance of survival are over 80s with 2 or more underlying conditions, who have about an 85% survival rate. I suppose the anti-viral treatment is great news for those guys but practically irrelevant to everyone else.
The message is, there is more than hope now if you get the virus. In fact, no matter what your circumstances, you’d have to be bloody unlucky to die from it.
Millions (billions?) of people sacrificed their mental, physical and financial wellbeing to lockdown for extended periods of time for the scaredy-cats who couldn’t accept a fraction of 1 percent chance of dying from a flu-like virus. This has had a catastrophic effect on some of the most mentally/ physically fragile and economically vulnerable people, not to mention those whose medical treatments and operations were neglected due to a collective bout of bedwetting over covid.
Until they discovered they were exempt, these people also wore dirty, bacteria-ridden rags over their noses and mouths, restricting their breathing and potentially damaging their health, for the same unselfish reasons.
This was all done to buy the scaredy-cats time until the vaccines were ready to reassure them. Now they’re here, the scaredy-cats are so ‘confident’ about these vaccines, which they blindly support like diehard football fans, that they insist that everyone else has to take them to make them work. The right to bodily autonomy is selfish, is it? Come on, you can’t seriously believe that.
Your Ardern point just goes to show how far your country has fallen. You’ve given away the rights handed down to you over generations for a little temporary safety from a virus with a fraction of 1 percent chance of killing you because some Kiwis are now frightened of their own shadows.
Papaphilly, I’m glad I made your point for you. Somebody’s got to do it.
Why are you linking to studies in favour of masks when you did not comment on the link I posted on the covid thread to the 50+ studies proving that masks are either pointless or even harmful to the wearer?
Scout, most people have a fraction of 1 per cent chance of dying from covid, vaccinated or unvaccinated. The only group who has less than a 90% chance of survival are over 80s with 2 or more underlying conditions, who have about an 85% survival rate. I suppose the anti-viral treatment is great news for those guys but practically irrelevant to everyone else.
The message is, there is more than hope now if you get the virus. In fact, no matter what your circumstances, you’d have to be bloody unlucky to die from it.
NP, I was referring to the 'Vampire Dominion,' as a metaphor of my personal observations/thoughts of how the world operates.