Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

So are you climbing down on your "It could be argued that by refusing the vaccine you are guilty of self-harm something the govt is legitimately entitled to address" statement which implies that mandatory vaccination is on the cards?

 

I think you're being very silly in refusing the vaccine! You have your reasons, I respect that, and I certainly wouldn't bracket you in with the Dr Bitchute crowd, but I think the govt's right to keep badgering you about it. It really is for your own good.

The issue of mandatory vaccination is a hugely problematic one though, no argument from me there. 

At the very least we should require healthcare professionals to be vaccinated.

[Ah-so]

1 hour ago, Kosmin said:

I'm not sure some elements of the story are impossible. But I thought there were other big problems with the story. Wouldn't the carnivorous animals eat the others? Did Noah collect the necessary plants for the herbivores, or would they starve?

As well as building a boat that many think would have broken up due to being by far the biggest wooden boat ever buil (and by a handful of people) and all those onboard dying of methane poisoning within an hour due to its poor ventilation, it would have needed a year's supply of food for all animals. It would also have needed a small army to feed all the animals onboard and clear away the dung. 

They would actually have needed far more food due to the earth being poisoned by saline water, rendering it unusable for years. 

Personally I prefer the Epic of Gilgamesh rather than the much newer rewrite of it by the ancient Hebrews. OK, they changed it a bit, but they should have paid royalties on this work of fiction. 

Anyway, I seem to have drifted off topic. But I wonder whether there is a distinct overlap between the biblical literalists and the anti-vaxxers. In the USA, I suspect so. 

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

 

I think you're being very silly in refusing the vaccine! You have your reasons, I respect that, and I certainly wouldn't bracket you in with the Dr Bitchute crowd, but I think the govt's right to keep badgering you about it. It really is for your own good.

The issue of mandatory vaccination is a hugely problematic one though, no argument from me there. 

At the very least we should require healthcare professionals to be vaccinated.

My vaccination status is private, but if I were to be unvaccinated, continued badgering, bullying, coercion, nannying etc would only serve to put my back up as it probably will with the five million odd, unvaccinated by choice, adults in the UK.

[Locke]

28 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

It's not flu.

It's not experimental mRNA therapy.

Even one dose reduces the rate of transmission of the Covid virus.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half

Lol, yes it is.

That data is over half a year out of date. Delta seems to be overcoming the treatment, as expected.

[zugzwang]

3 hours ago, Locke said:

Yes, because they made it. In a lab. In China.

 

The latest claim is that Chinese researchers released aerosols containing novel chimeric spike proteins it into bat caves near Wuhan in 2018.

Remnants of those viruses would still be in the local bat population if that were true. There's no evidence of them. There is evidence, however, of viruses similar to SARS CoV 2 in populations of horseshoe bats in Northern Laos.

The accidental escape theory is also bunkum. A biological weapon that kills mostly over 75s? Not even Arpeggio would believe that.

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by zugzwang

[zugzwang]

21 minutes ago, Locke said:

Lol, yes it is.

That data is over half a year out of date. Delta seems to be overcoming the treatment, as expected.

 

Not true. The vaccines are still highly effective against the Delta variant. Booster jabs are already being shipped.

Another national lockdown, probably in the two weeks before Xmas, will seal the deal.

[FallingAwake]

28 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

The latest claim is that Chinese researchers released aerosols containing novel chimeric spike proteins it into bat caves near Wuhan in 2018.

False. They wanted to, but were denied permission. If you're going to "debunk" something, at least make the effort to know about what you're debunking 👓

28 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The accidental escape theory is also bunkum. A biological weapon that kills mostly over 75s? Not even Arpeggio would believe that.

 

If it's an "accidental escape" then it's not a biological weapon, by definition. It's an accident.

If you're talking about a deliberate leak, then why assume killing people is their aim? I agree, if they're trying to kill they've been largely unsuccessful (although the 5 million people dead might disagree).

If their aim has been for more control over the population, I'd say they've had partial to good success - what with lockdowns, vaccine passports, and whatever else is to come as we cycle through further variants.

The UK and US have further extended their nations debts, putting them even further over the edge. (The US debt is now at nearly $30 TRILLION, up from $6T in 2001 before the "war on terror", war on Afghanistan, war in Iraq, bailing out banks etc.)

Plus, 90% of the adult population of the UK, and large parts of the world, have been convinced of the need to be injected with a pharmaceutical product which needs topping up every 6 months or so.

At a minimum, that's a huge moneymaker for the pharmaceutical industry.

[Pmax2020]

4 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

Debateable, the danger comes from it not really protecting people as much as they think and their behaviour patterns drifting back to pre-Covid, hence the spikes in infection we are seeing IMO. 

I work with people of all ages and almost everyone is now fully vaccinated. My wife and I’s friends and families have also all been double jabbed. In fact, I only know a single person that has refused it because she’s quite overweight and is worried about clots. Fair enough.

The idea though that the vaccines net benefit is marginal because people behave as though we’re pre-covid is delusional and frankly brainless.

Every single day conversations with friends and colleagues invariably reference the impact covid continues to have on how they function. “We had planned to it this weekend but we’ve cancelled it because of covid” or “We were meant to go out for a meal with friends but we’re having a party in the garden”. 

Honestly, the narrative that vaccination makes everyone lose their inhibitions and forget the virus exists is truly moronic. 

[anonguest]

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

 

The latest claim is that Chinese researchers released aerosols containing novel chimeric spike proteins it into bat caves near Wuhan in 2018.

Remnants of those viruses would still be in the local bat population if that were true. There's no evidence of them. There is evidence, however, of viruses similar to SARS CoV 2 in populations of horseshoe bats in Northern Laos.

The accidental escape theory is also bunkum. A biological weapon that kills mostly over 75s? Not even Arpeggio would believe that.

 

Why would the fact that it kills mostly the elderly automatically invalidate it as a 'weapon'?  There could be a great many megalomaniacal Bond villain types with with interest in reducing the numbers of surplus 'useless eaters'.  It's easy to let ones imagination run riot on this. 😉

Edited September 22, 2021 by anonguest

[A.steve]

4 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Where did the discrimination come from though? Did the government force private enterprises to discriminate, or did they decide to impose restrictions as they felt that was better for business?

In the 1930s, in Germany, many private businesses decided that it was "better for business" to treat Jews as second class citizens and refuse to serve them.  A little later, once they had been de-humanized, the government found it much easier to commission mass extermination.

Interestingly, the arguments that these private businesses should have been free to discriminate, however they saw fit, and that the government was not to blame either - because they did not explicitly require the discrimination in question - are not without precedent.  I had understood that, from the 1950s onwards (at least) such ideas did not have mainstream support.

4 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

So without masks and lockdown how do you stop it spreading?

Precedent suggests that, if one assumes responsibility for stopping (any type of) "it" spreading... the strategy will be to focus on scape-goats... typically identifying them by physical attributes, and/or political/ethical/religious beliefs: curtail their rights; undermine their dignity; promote disgust - then exterminate them.  "Better safe than sorry..." - they'll say... and ask for gratitude for having courageously taken the initiative.  There will be a story about how much worse everything would now be if no-one had done what appears to have been evil.  This story about necessity will be promoted as if were true - because it can't be empirically tested.  It recurs throughout history.

I guess everything depends upon whether you are terrified at the prospect of dying yourself.  I am not.  I'd prefer to live - but how I live is far more important than how long I spend doing it.

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by A.steve
Curious why this is "Hidden"...

[A.steve]

5 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

Of course, hardcore believers in naturalism such as Dawkins will deny that intelligent design is competition in any way, because they'll say it's not 'science'.

I'm pleased that we both insist that "science" needs the quotation marks when used in this context.

I just want to clarify... while I actively dislike Dawkins' rhetoric, and feel dismay at the beliefs of his fan base... I have not approached this with any beliefs of my own about "Intelligent Design" - or otherwise.

The scientific method is undeniably a profound philosophical tool.  We can credit it with having delivered a vastly improved (but still imperfect) knowledge about the natural world.  One might also credit these ideas as having been a necessary foundation for substantial societal progress during the C17-C18 - where a broader range of people were empowered to question the entrenched power and authority of Monarchy and Church.  Problems emerge where there is intellectual over-reach... where principles that were insightful in one domain are transformed (either honestly, or otherwise) to serve as a basis for influence and decision making in unrelated domains (c.f. Cargo Cults).  For example:  the theory of Darwinian evolution represents a compelling narrative about the 'Origin of species'... but Social Dawinism (which seeks intellectual credibility by tenuous association) is a poisonous doctrine that lacks meaningful foundation and depends upon uncritical acceptance of fallacies.

The Enlightenment - the period during which scientific principles became established - is also known as 'the age of reason'.  Today, it seems, a significant proportion of the public has lost its way with respect to the necessity to apply reason.  The inadequately educated/informed masses, centuries ago, were principally guided by the hierarchical authorities of Church and State. Today, it seems, a similar demographic remains - and, today, are guided by people who claim the authority of "Science" - rather than the authority of "Almighty God Himself" or the "Divine rights of Kings".  The irony, of course, is that those who appreciate the significant Enlightenment-era advances in human comprehension would also recognize that "appeal to authority" - even when that authority is labelled "Science" (or other words that sound superficially scientific) is entirely fallacious.  Such fallacies demonstrate failure to embrace reason - and, as such, violate every valid scientific principle.

  My fundamental objection to Dawkins is not just that he has an odious personality (we all have our crosses to bear) but that he misrepresents his ideas as conveying scientific "truth" when, in reality, they fail even to make the bar as scientific hypotheses.  Dawkins fails to appreciate that the scientific method depends upon honest, open, rational criticism - and is incompatible with assumptions that "science" provides "truth" when, in reality, it just provides a framework within which some ideas can be objectively questioned and empirically tested.

2 minutes ago, ucnvpe0 said:

The institutions and cultural norms we have in Britain means the chance of a revolt against the establishment is extremely slim in my opinion. They are in a comfortable position and the majority will continue to support the status quo.

You might be right.  However...

1. We live in a global society. The British represent less than 1% of the population.
2. I think most people (the British Government, opposition politicians and myself all included) thought that a substantial majority would continue to support the status-quo before the Brexit referendum.  This assumption was wrong.

 

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, FallingAwake said:

If it's an "accidental escape" then it's not a biological weapon, by definition. It's an accident.

If you're talking about a deliberate leak, then why assume killing people is their aim? I agree, if they're trying to kill they've been largely unsuccessful (although the 5 million people dead might disagree).

 

The conspiracy narratives embrace both accidental and deliberate leaks (see yesterday's stub about the 2019 Military World Games).

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-link-to-china-biowarfare-program-possi/.

The Chinese didn't do themselves any favours by appointing Chen Wei, a leading biological weapons expert at the Academy of Military Science, to oversee the WIV facility in February 2020.

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

False. They wanted to, but were denied permission. If you're going to "debunk" something, at least make the effort to know about what you're debunking 👓

Perhaps. Had they done so they might have created a deadly chimera. On the other hand they might have designed their experiments in such a way as to make that risk impossible.

The facts, however, are that this never happened.

[FallingAwake]

6 hours ago, Kosmin said:

I'm not sure some elements of the story are impossible. But I thought there were other big problems with the story. Wouldn't the carnivorous animals eat the others? Did Noah collect the necessary plants for the herbivores, or would they starve?

I think creationists argue animals were vegetarian until afterwards.

As for the notion of, say, some kind of species-preserving "Ark" for mammals, there aren't all that many types of them:

Quote

According to Mammal Species of the World, 5,416 species were identified in 2006. These were grouped into 1,229 genera, 153 families and 29 orders.^[4] In 2008, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) completed a five-year Global Mammal Assessment for its IUCN Red List, which counted 5,488 species.^[5] According to research published in the Journal of Mammalogy in 2018, the number of recognized mammal species is 6,495, including 96 recently extinct." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

This includes creatures like whales. Anyway, if we work on the assumption that the Ark was about preserving samples from each land animal group, either by twos or sevens... 6,495 x 7 is about 45,000. (Or maybe just "genera" or even just "family".) Given that the Smithsonian article says it could hold about 2 million sheep, 45,000 would leave lots of room. In other words, it's plausible. Many cultures of the world have a universal flood mythology. Only the Hebrew one contains an object that can actually float, despite its weight. The Gilgamesh Epic version of the Ark was a cube that, as far as I know, nobody can actually get to float.

Anyway, [something about coronavirus] to make this relevant

Edited September 22, 2021 by FallingAwake

[zugzwang]

15 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

I think creationists argue animals were vegetarian until afterwards.

 

By the beard of Zeus!

 

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

The inadequately educated/informed masses, centuries ago, were principally guided by the hierarchical authorities of Church and State. Today, it seems, a similar demographic remains - and, today, are guided by people who claim the authority of "Science"

 

Trumpers are guided by people who claim the authority of science?

Seriously?

[zugzwang]

[The Spaniard]

On 17/09/2021 at 16:49, The Spaniard said:

There appears to be a much larger Facebook thread from WXYZ TV who likewise asked for anecdotes about the unjabbed and instead have been inundated with 182,000+ comments (and counting) about adverse reactions to the jab.

https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/local-detroit-tv-asks-for-stories-of-unvaxxed-dying-from-covid-gets-over-180k-responses-of-vaccine-injured-and-dead-instead/

Now 232,000+ comments, and continuing to be almost all about adverse jab reactions. Major backfire.

And then there are all these dead and adversely affected young people whose unprecedented number continues to grow.

YOUNG HEARTS (PART I) - MRNA PFIZER MODERNA HEART INFLAMMATION IN YOUNG MEN

 

YOUNG HEARTS (PART I) - MRNA PFIZER MODERNA HEART INFLAMMATION IN YOUNG MEN This is part I of a 3 part series. MIRRORED from checkur6 at https://www.bitchute.com/video/0sOyKTh8Uhm5/

 

YOUNG HEARTS (PART II) - ATHLETES' HEARTS FAILING AFTER THE JAB

 

YOUNG HEARTS (PART II) - ATHLETES' HEARTS FAILING AFTER THE JAB Over 30 deaths of young athletes just last month and where is the fake mainstream media on these? 99.99% of the...

YOUNG HEARTS (PART III) - SO MANY DYING FROM THE JAB - THE MEDIA ARE SILENT

 

YOUNG HEARTS (PART III) - SO MANY DYING FROM THE JAB - THE MEDIA ARE SILENT MIRROR SOURCE: September 8, 2021 https://odysee.com/@hugotalks:8 https://odysee.com/@hugotalks:8/young-hearts-...

 

YOUNG HEARTS (PART IV) - HOW MANY MORE WILL DIE FROM THE JAB

 

YOUNG HEARTS (PART IV) - HOW MANY MORE WILL DIE FROM THE JAB Over 110 athletes, teens and other victims of the jab have been captured in Episodes 1-4.

In my opinion these terrible tragedies should be reported far more widely.

The fact that they are not contradicts the obligation of "informed consent".

 

 

[FallingAwake]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

I'm pleased that we both insist that "science" needs the quotation marks when used in this context.

I just want to clarify... while I actively dislike Dawkins' rhetoric, and feel dismay at the beliefs of his fan base... I have not approached this with any beliefs of my own about "Intelligent Design" - or otherwise.

The scientific method is undeniably a profound philosophical tool.  We can credit it with having delivered a vastly improved (but still imperfect) knowledge about the natural world.  One might also credit these ideas as having been a necessary foundation for substantial societal progress during the C17-C18 - where a broader range of people were empowered to question the entrenched power and authority of Monarchy and Church.  Problems emerge where there is intellectual over-reach... where principles that were insightful in one domain are transformed (either honestly, or otherwise) to serve as a basis for influence and decision making in unrelated domains (c.f. Cargo Cults).  For example:  the theory of Darwinian evolution represents a compelling narrative about the 'Origin of species'... but Social Dawinism (which seeks intellectual credibility by tenuous association) is a poisonous doctrine that lacks meaningful foundation and depends upon uncritical acceptance of fallacies.

The Enlightenment - the period during which scientific principles became established - is also known as 'the age of reason'.  Today, it seems, a significant proportion of the public has lost its way with respect to the necessity to apply reason.  The inadequately educated/informed masses, centuries ago, were principally guided by the hierarchical authorities of Church and State. Today, it seems, a similar demographic remains - and, today, are guided by people who claim the authority of "Science" - rather than the authority of "Almighty God Himself" or the "Divine rights of Kings".  The irony, of course, is that those who appreciate the significant Enlightenment-era advances in human comprehension would also recognize that "appeal to authority" - even when that authority is labelled "Science" (or other words that sound superficially scientific) is entirely fallacious.  Such fallacies demonstrate failure to embrace reason - and, as such, violate every valid scientific principle.

Very well though-out post.

I'd say, however, that the general public have never been particularly into 'reason'. Emotions, biases, vested interests... these play an equal or bigger part as human drivers.

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

  My fundamental objection to Dawkins is not just that he has an odious personality (we all have our crosses to bear) but that he misrepresents his ideas as conveying scientific "truth" when, in reality, they fail even to make the bar as scientific hypotheses.  Dawkins fails to appreciate that the scientific method depends upon honest, open, rational criticism - and is incompatible with assumptions that "science" provides "truth" when, in reality, it just provides a framework within which some ideas can be objectively questioned and empirically tested.

Well, Dawkins is simply a product of the philosophy of naturalism. He just took it to its logical conclusion.

My point is that the whole philosophical foundation is spurious. If you start with the premise that everything has to be explained in some 'natural' way, then by definition you eliminate the 'supernatural.'

He can create all the theoretical protocells he wants (as he does in The Blind Watchmaker), but that doesn't actually explain how the pieces come together to replicate, store data, read data, do something useful with the data, error correct etc (the stuff you need even to begin Darwinian evolution). Intelligent design can. The only reason this is rejected is for philosophical reasons, i.e. it violates the principle of naturalism.

But even if one day they invent a protocell that does exactly what Dawkins suggests, does it prove life therefore came about in that manner? No. At best, it proves you can intelligently design a protocell

[14stFlyer]

22 hours ago, zugzwang said:

22 hours ago, A.steve said:

 

How odd. My expectation is that billions of people have had their faith in the establishment renewed by all of this,

Not me. 

[Chunketh]

14 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

My point is that the whole philosophical foundation is spurious. If you start with the premise that everything has to be explained in some 'natural' way, then by definition you eliminate the 'supernatural.'

Evidence is a bitch, ain’t it.

Supernatural implies there is some special category of observed behaviour reserved for woo. There isn’t. Prove it or ****** off.

[Kosmin]

2 hours ago, A.steve said:

In the 1930s, in Germany, many private businesses decided that it was "better for business" to treat Jews as second class citizens and refuse to serve them....  I had understood that, from the 1950s onwards (at least) such ideas did not have mainstream support.

I think discrimination on medical grounds is generally accepted. Many destinations won't allow you to travel if you haven't had the relevant vaccinations (malaria, yellow fever, etc.). Airlines and cruises won't allow you to travel if they know you're ill. 

Businesses discriminate against smokers. The government now requires this discrimination.

There is an obvious harm in each of these cases. Smoking close to others causes them harm. Unvaccinated people increase the risk to others.

It's not obvious that religious or racial groups cause harm. Arguably they do (if they commit crimes or terrorism disproportionately) in some cases.

Discrimination on non-medical grounds is still quite contentious, contrary to your implication that it disappeared and/or became unacceptable in the 1950s.

Libertarians in the USA (e.g. Ron Paul and 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater) argued that private businesses should be allowed to continue discriminate on the grounds of race. This century, there have been controversies over whether businesses and religious institutions should be forced to treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals (e.g. baking wedding cakes, allowing homosexual couples to stay in a hotel/B&B, officiating same sex marriages in church).

Discrimination against transgender people seems especially contentious. I assume the majority are in favour of discrimination here. I think this is partly because there is a plausible sounding argument that it facilitates harm (allowing men to claim they are transgender to access women only spaces and allowing them to compete in women's sports can do real harm in contact sports).

[Chunketh]

18 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

He can create all the theoretical protocells he wants (as he does in The Blind Watchmaker), but that doesn't actually explain how the pieces come together to replicate, store data, read data, do something useful with the data, error correct etc (the stuff you need even to begin Darwinian evolution). Intelligent design can. The only reason this is rejected is for philosophical reasons, i.e. it violates the principle of naturalism.

Evolution answers all of it. The picosecond data can be stored it becomes a selector, and a very powerful one at that.

Your sky fairy explains nothing. 

[sPinwheel]

This thread is seriously off the rails, what's Noah's bleeding Ark got to do with anything. Sometimes I wish the HHGTTG B-Ark was real.

[14stFlyer]

5 hours ago, zugzwang said:

The accidental escape theory is also bunkum.

Virologist involvement seems more likely than wild bat-to-local human transmission to me I am afraid.
 

The first human cases turned up in Wuhan, some 1000 or so miles away from the bat caves on the China-Laos border where the ancestor viruses are supposed to have come from.  The Wuhan market is MUCH closer to the WIV than to the caves. To me, this suggests at least some form of transfer by virologists, either by picking up the disease on fieldwork when collecting the bat viruses and bringing them back, or by later release of stored samples. 

Edited September 22, 2021 by 14stFlyer