Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Are We Being Psychologically Tortured?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

29 minutes ago, The Spaniard said:

The independent Canadian journalist Polly St George draws some disturbing parallels between official responses to COVID-19 and documented psychological torture techniques. (Conspiraphobes look away.)

 

You raise a valid point, I wont pretend I've got 1 hour, to watch that video.

However there are clear parallels with, Stockholm Syrdome and trauma bonding.

When this started to gain traction in the UK, the media pushed death death and death. Boris actually tried to keep our economy going by staying rational and suggesting herd immunity.

I've said many times on here, that 0.02% mortality rate, for basically the working population, does not require such strict measures. Hence, Swedens different approach.

The NHS is not over run with cases, the left say this is just luck, blah blah.. ****** Boris, we want free furlough monies and to destory our children's education.

This, is not progressive we actually want the NHS to be treating as many covid19 cases, as capacity allows.

It's interesting to note that nursing home deaths, IMO were intentional, they'll get away with that one.

The media has gripped us with fear, now the public are frightened, pandering to the abuser. 

Whilst pandering they are loosing their jobs, their livelihoods and now risk loosing property or having to relocate.

Every out break, anywhere generates fear... (trauma bonded).

Now I find it particularly suspicious, that our supposedly capitalist goverment are pushing all sorts of communist policies. Loading businesses, with state debt, essentially buying a chunk of their business.

So, the property market, we are either heading down a spiral where, living standards reduce further. Your loosing your wealth, as a result.

I do not subscribe to the view that house prices will fall substantially. 

 

Edited by Speed1987
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue was always panic that the NHS would be overrun - I can't imagine the outcry if we had bodies littering hallways here as they did in Italy. At the end, its a rock and a hard place for Boris.

When he came out and said - people are going to die - herd immunity, I was really shocked, not least because it was the opposite of the direction of France, Spain and Italy and in effect said - we value money over human life (I appreciate there are human life costs even with this choice) - that went down like a sh*t sandwich. Look at Brazil and to a point, the US, are their economies going to thrive with 50k infected a day (deaths will follow four weeks from now), they need to control the virus or the economy will not recover.

None of us know the final outcome yet, which countries will be better placed financially after this ravaging etc, but I do think hard Boris let the NHS become over-run, had he let 100000s die, he would never get re-elected and potentially would have been removed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whynow said:

I think the issue was always panic that the NHS would be overrun - I can't imagine the outcry if we had bodies littering hallways here as they did in Italy. At the end, its a rock and a hard place for Boris.

When he came out and said - people are going to die - herd immunity, I was really shocked, not least because it was the opposite of the direction of France, Spain and Italy and in effect said - we value money over human life (I appreciate there are human life costs even with this choice) - that went down like a sh*t sandwich. Look at Brazil and to a point, the US, are their economies going to thrive with 50k infected a day (deaths will follow four weeks from now), they need to control the virus or the economy will not recover.

None of us know the final outcome yet, which countries will be better placed financially after this ravaging etc, but I do think hard Boris let the NHS become over-run, had he let 100000s die, he would never get re-elected and potentially would have been removed. 

However, if you control the virus, as you suggest... you just end up with an economy, in limp mode for a longer duration.

I honestly believe compliance to lockdown rules will reduce. The government are passing over responsibility. Essentially saying, you dont want herd immunity? Be poor, then you'll change your mind.

We are asking for riots and disorder, it would me more appropriate, to have a higher death rate and push on for herd immunity.

The virus, is everywhere in the world. We haven't chosen to eradicate it (through a more aggressive lockdown), which is somewhat sensible, as that is impossible now. However it would be much more sensible to keep our economy stronger and head to herd immunity.

Valuing human life now, will likely cost much mor later, as we become more poorer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, whynow said:

I think the issue was always panic that the NHS would be overrun - I can't imagine the outcry if we had bodies littering hallways here as they did in Italy. At the end, its a rock and a hard place for Boris.

When he came out and said - people are going to die - herd immunity, I was really shocked, not least because it was the opposite of the direction of France, Spain and Italy and in effect said - we value money over human life (I appreciate there are human life costs even with this choice) - that went down like a sh*t sandwich. Look at Brazil and to a point, the US, are their economies going to thrive with 50k infected a day (deaths will follow four weeks from now), they need to control the virus or the economy will not recover.

None of us know the final outcome yet, which countries will be better placed financially after this ravaging etc, but I do think hard Boris let the NHS become over-run, had he let 100000s die, he would never get re-elected and potentially would have been removed. 

Some pretty big assumptions there... firstly that without a lockdown "100,000s" would die.. based on what? Countries without a lockdown or so badly inforced it doesnt count do not have "100,000s" of deaths.. why would the UK?

As for the USA, its not a second wave but a first wave in the states that lockdown early.. for what exactly now? The cases are not in New York but Texas etc. So they have double cost.. the lockdown and the hit when it reaches there already. As Portugal is finding out now as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, captainb said:

Some pretty big assumptions there... firstly that without a lockdown "100,000s" would die.. based on what? Countries without a lockdown or so badly inforced it doesnt count do not have "100,000s" of deaths.. why would the UK?

As for the USA, its not a second wave but a first wave in the states that lockdown early.. for what exactly now? The cases are not in New York but Texas etc. So they have double cost.. the lockdown and the hit when it reaches there already. As Portugal is finding out now as well.

 

I agree ??.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, captainb said:

Some pretty big assumptions there... firstly that without a lockdown "100,000s" would die.. based on what? Countries without a lockdown or so badly inforced it doesnt count do not have "100,000s" of deaths.. why would the UK?

As for the USA, its not a second wave but a first wave in the states that lockdown early.. for what exactly now? The cases are not in New York but Texas etc. So they have double cost.. the lockdown and the hit when it reaches there already. As Portugal is finding out now as well.

 

At the start, we obvioously did not know how many were going to die. You ask "based on what?", but when a pandemic is kicking off, and you can see that a lot of people are dying, even is data is sketchy, what can you do. Early assumptions - a highly virulent disease with a 1% to 2% mortality rate. Assume 50m in the UK catch it, that is 500,000 to 1m dying, well within reasonable assumptions.

Imagine that we were in a hypothetical situation in a year where 700,000 people had died, the economy has still crashed and the NHS was overrun. Would it then be a fair response to say "we didn't know" when actually the evidence gave a clear indication that this was a real possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ah-so said:

At the start, we obvioously did not know how many were going to die. You ask "based on what?", but when a pandemic is kicking off, and you can see that a lot of people are dying, even is data is sketchy, what can you do. Early assumptions - a highly virulent disease with a 1% to 2% mortality rate. Assume 50m in the UK catch it, that is 500,000 to 1m dying, well within reasonable assumptions.

Imagine that we were in a hypothetical situation in a year where 700,000 people had died, the economy has still crashed and the NHS was overrun. Would it then be a fair response to say "we didn't know" when actually the evidence gave a clear indication that this was a real possibility.

Yes. An abundance of caution could be excused at the start. However when we know more data, why do people keep referring back to a now deeply flawed model?

Swine flu initial estimates had a death rate of 1-2%. Was actually 0.02% and the world stopped panicking.

Why are people trying to bring back panic when we know the rate is much lower than initially feared? People wouldn't have died in those numbers. A mistake as much as an assumption without data was wrong, move on.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whynow said:

I think the issue was always panic that the NHS would be overrun - I can't imagine the outcry if we had bodies littering hallways here as they did in Italy. At the end, its a rock and a hard place for Boris.

People love banging on about "look what was happening in other countries before it got established here" as (rather questionable) justification for going all 1984 as soon as someone coughed but looking at what was happening in Spain and Italy the health service being overwhelmed did indeed appear to be a very real risk, and I wonder how many of those banging on about discharging into care homes now were all for it then as seeming to be the lesser evil (not that the type of people who think exclusively in black and white terms would put it like that).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, captainb said:

Some pretty big assumptions there... firstly that without a lockdown "100,000s" would die.. based on what? Countries without a lockdown or so badly inforced it doesnt count do not have "100,000s" of deaths.. why would the UK?

The big lockdown question is that it's as much an article of faith that heavy restrictions actually make much difference - a lot of it is based on pretty darned questionable "make it hard for people to do anything and that's bound to help because, erm, shut up and don't question it, do you want people to die?" We know enough about general disease transmission to see that some of it was (and some things still are) pretty ludicrous, and that similar results can be achieved with far fewer restrictions. It's only the people who think in very simple linear terms "harsher==better" who kick up a fuss. Unfortunately there are a lot of them.

It also meant that there was insufficient effort going in to identifying the most likely routes of transmission from the start, which would've enabled much more targetted (and possible much stricter in their narrow area) measures to be taken. But do that and people start whinging "it's all too complicated", because they're just used to being told in simple terms what simple things to do and that they'll make all the difference - the belief the world is really a simple place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, captainb said:

Yes. An abundance of caution could be excused at the start. However when we know more data, why do people keep referring back to a now deeply flawed model?

Swine flu initial estimates had a death rate of 1-2%. Was actually 0.02% and the world stopped panicking.

Why are people trying to bring back panic when we know the rate is much lower than initially feared? People wouldn't have died in those numbers. A mistake as much as an assumption without data was wrong, move on.

Had the virus spread totally unchecked, we would have ended up with 100,000 plus dead quite easily, I imagine. As it happens, we have 40,000 die. Not a small number. How many died from swine flu?

Yes I know many of those had health issues, but that does not mean that their death should be dismissed - someone with diabetes could live for decades. Even my father would now be high risk on age alone, but I suspect that he has a good five years plus left in him otherwise. 

You can't throw the economy away for health reasons alone and we need to walk a tricky path between health and the economy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ah-so said:

Had the virus spread totally unchecked, we would have ended up with 100,000 plus dead quite easily, I imagine. As it happens, we have 40,000 die. Not a small number. How many died from swine flu?

Yes I know many of those had health issues, but that does not mean that their death should be dismissed - someone with diabetes could live for decades. Even my father would now be high risk on age alone, but I suspect that he has a good five years plus left in him otherwise. 

You can't throw the economy away for health reasons alone and we need to walk a tricky path between health and the economy. 

Nobody is dismissing their lives. But if someone with stage 3 cancer dies in hospital having tested positive for CV19 is it worth including as a CV death?

Our great aunt tragically died in her home in April with CV19 aged 91. However, over the past two years we have rushed over multiple times after having the "this might be it" phone call. There has to be some level of realism there.

 

Your assumption that deaths would have reached 100,000 based on? again it seems we managed the worst possible solution through over-reaction of pushing out people from hospital infected into care homes. Genius.

Mexico, Brazil, Chilie etc have all reached a stage of giving up reference general lockdowns. If you cant feed your family, the risk of CV19 is well.. minor. Will be interesting where the curve ends up there. It seems to be following a no-worse path than UK/Spain/Italy etc from a deaths per million perspective. So again we have to ask what has the general lockdown actually achieved...?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are living through a series of psychological operations. There is a war currently going on, and its basically them (rich business interests and their puppet governments) versus the general population. 

There is a major spiritual element to this that includes a ritualistic component. You might not believe in Satan, but they do. 

We are currently living through the destruction of Christian values, the destruction of their old world order and the creation of the NWO (which was Biblically prophesied). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lewis Gordon Pugh said:

We are living through a series of psychological operations. There is a war currently going on, and its basically them (rich business interests and their puppet governments) versus the general population. 

There is a major spiritual element to this that includes a ritualistic component. You might not believe in Satan, but they do. 

We are currently living through the destruction of Christian values, the destruction of their old world order and the creation of the NWO (which was Biblically prophesied). 

So does this conspiracy only exist in christian or formally christian states?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lewis Gordon Pugh said:

We are living through a series of psychological operations. There is a war currently going on, and its basically them (rich business interests and their puppet governments) versus the general population. 

There is a major spiritual element to this that includes a ritualistic component. You might not believe in Satan, but they do. 

We are currently living through the destruction of Christian values, the destruction of their old world order and the creation of the NWO (which was Biblically prophesied). 

I can see your point, but i do not think this is done to script.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, captainb said:

So does this conspiracy only exist in christian or formally christian states?

And I don't accept the concept of Christian values either. We have values, and the religious aspect is just moulded to fit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, captainb said:

Some pretty big assumptions there... firstly that without a lockdown "100,000s" would die.. based on what? Countries without a lockdown or so badly inforced it doesnt count do not have "100,000s" of deaths.. why would the UK?

As for the USA, its not a second wave but a first wave in the states that lockdown early.. for what exactly now? The cases are not in New York but Texas etc. So they have double cost.. the lockdown and the hit when it reaches there already. As Portugal is finding out now as well.

 

Based on the fact 100000s have already died in the US and we are over 40k now, you think if we'd done nothing to control infections we wouldn't be well north of 40k. I think its an UNDERestimate!

 

I didn't say the US was a second wave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, captainb said:

Yes. An abundance of caution could be excused at the start. However when we know more data, why do people keep referring back to a now deeply flawed model?

Swine flu initial estimates had a death rate of 1-2%. Was actually 0.02% and the world stopped panicking.

Why are people trying to bring back panic when we know the rate is much lower than initially feared? People wouldn't have died in those numbers. A mistake as much as an assumption without data was wrong, move on.

The tendancy to panic is a strange one to m but could be explained by having to face something that's not initially understood so fear sets in.

What is even odder is once we have a better understanding of something humans still remain trapped in the initial fear stage way of thinking and don't move on.

If we give Furgason/ICL the benefit of the doubt back in march it doesn't mean we have to be wedded to a 1% death rate for ever.

Most people think the virus is a massive threat but if you say march was a far riskier time of infection they look at you in a stunned way.

As I said you could do endless PHDs on the behavioural responses of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whynow said:

Based on the fact 100000s have already died in the US and we are over 40k now, you think if we'd done nothing to control infections we wouldn't be well north of 40k. I think its an UNDERestimate!

 

I didn't say the US was a second wave.

Im saying the control did virtually nothing. If anything the reaction causing people to be rushed out of hospital into care homes caused more deaths.

We always have it an "all or nothing approach". A targeted approach where care homes were locked down, and people with compromised immune systems were lockdown but others were not would have almost certainly lead to less deaths. 

In addition it has the massive advantage of that it is sustainable over a long period of time (perhaps till a vaccine) where as a general lock-down is obviously not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, captainb said:

Nobody is dismissing their lives. But if someone with stage 3 cancer dies in hospital having tested positive for CV19 is it worth including as a CV death?

Our great aunt tragically died in her home in April with CV19 aged 91. However, over the past two years we have rushed over multiple times after having the "this might be it" phone call. There has to be some level of realism there.

 

Your assumption that deaths would have reached 100,000 based on? again it seems we managed the worst possible solution through over-reaction of pushing out people from hospital infected into care homes. Genius.

Mexico, Brazil, Chilie etc have all reached a stage of giving up reference general lockdowns. If you cant feed your family, the risk of CV19 is well.. minor. Will be interesting where the curve ends up there. It seems to be following a no-worse path than UK/Spain/Italy etc from a deaths per million perspective. So again we have to ask what has the general lockdown actually achieved...?

 

I appreciate that some of those already close to death may have finally died of COVID-19 and it that sense like many other ailments that ultimately finish people off. I don't have any data on the numbers that fall into this bracket.

I did not make an assumptions that deaths would have reached 100,000, but rather that it looked like a good possibility - deaths were running at 1,000 per day for a bit, so it does not take vast statistical powers to extrapolate to 100,000 in a relatively short period of time. I don't have evidence as to whether the lock-down was responsible for the subsequent reduction in deaths, but it does seem correlated. And could numbers rise up again if we fully exit lock-down? Again, i don't know, but it seems like a reasonable possibility.

It is always going to be hard to make the right decision between the economy and health. We are lucky that in the UK we are richer and have a larger part of economy that can be done remotely than countries in South America. A decade even, we could not have managed this - I don't think that broadband was good enough. I worked from home occasionally back then, but it was never a great experience.

We are doing the right thing to come out of lock-down, and perhaps a bit quicker than they are doing.

"So again we have to ask what has the general lockdown actually achieved...?" - I think it saved a large number of lives, but we will never know the counterfactual for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, captainb said:

Im saying the control did virtually nothing. If anything the reaction causing people to be rushed out of hospital into care homes caused more deaths.

We always have it an "all or nothing approach". A targeted approach where care homes were locked down, and people with compromised immune systems were lockdown but others were not would have almost certainly lead to less deaths. 

In addition it has the massive advantage of that it is sustainable over a long period of time (perhaps till a vaccine) where as a general lock-down is obviously not.

Panicked responses lead to errors. Rushing people into care homes undoubtedly caused more deaths. Mistakes are made - some of which are only identified retrospectively, whereas others are raised as a risk at the time, but the decision-maker has to make a judgement.

This is why simulating disasters, running fire drills etc is the best way to minimise the impact of disaster, but never removes them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

56 minutes ago, captainb said:

So does this conspiracy only exist in christian or formally christian states?

It's the demorilization stage of subversion. When complete it becomes self perpetuating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE&feature=youtu.be&t=829

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Clicked on the link but only read some of the comments. A gathering of alt-right weirdos banging on about the NWO and how BLM will lead us to communism. 

Good for you! I'm not sure I'd describe a KGB agent as alt-right, but maybe he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 415 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.