Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[Joe]

Mmm... Still not convinced I'll have to look at it again in more detail.

So what about this section then (and the rest if it) from an entirely new act, introduced only this year:



Sounds pretty much to me like a police state, with COVID-19 now being used as an excuse to implement fascism! And how will an appointed "heath officer" (you've just got to love the choice of language, as it's *pure* NLP) judge if you're considered as "potentially infectious" - based on what criteria? A cough or a 'funny look'??

Marco.

Again, this is not dissimilar to a provision in the original 1984 Act:

'36Medical examination of group of persons believed to comprise carrier of notifiable disease

(1)If a justice of the peace (acting, if he deems it necessary, ex parte) is satisfied, on a written certificate issued by the proper officer of the local authority for a district—

(a)that there is reason to believe that one of a group of persons, though not suffering from a notifiable disease, is carrying an organism that is capable of causing it, and

(b)that in the interest of those persons or their families, or in the public interest, it is expedient that those persons should be medically examined,

the justice may order them to be medically examined by a registered medical practitioner nominated by the local authority for that district.'

The basic, fundamental fact is that not only does current legislation not provide for compulsory vaccination, it explicitly forbids any form of compulsory medical treatment. Even when someone consents to treatment, there is a legal duty on the person providing the treatment to explain its purpose and possible side-effects. I get this type of spiel every time I have a flu jab (though so far I've not had any side-effects). AFAIK, health workers are not obliged to have the flu jab, though they are strongly encouraged to have one. No doubt they'll be in the front go the queue if/when a COVID vaccine is developed, but I'll be with Macca right behind them.

But as I said up-thread, vaccination has always produced paranoia, most recently in the case of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab. A 'heretic' doctor produced evidence that the jab caused autism. In fact, he'd fiddled the data, and the risk of autism is no greater in children who have the jab compared to those who don't, though the latter can, and often do, develop the potentially fatal diseases the jab protects them from.

[Mikeandvan]

I'm not concerned about mandatory vaccine, why be scared of a vaccine, didn;t you get the measles jab as a kiddie? What does concern me is the economy, and the point made in the video that about half of it won't be needed, I made the same point myself on Facebook a few days ago, a lot of our economy is froth and now after doing without it people might realise they just don't need it. The Scottish expansion of hate speech laws is a bad thing, for sure, but that's been happening in the UK anyway since the S.Lawrence enquiry. A worrying trend indeed, one gleefully heralded by the lefty virtue signalling set over on PFM, a bunch who think they're so 'progressive' and that their opinions are so right on that they'll never be subject of hate speech laws, oops, then along came trans activists and put an end to that, gotta love that though, lesson learnt? Probably not. This is indeed a scary and pivotal time, the lockdown and furloughing staff and the money being handed out like sweeties is merely comfort food, we'll see in a few months the lie of the land, and that's when the proverbial will really hit the fans. This virus is nothing compared to the economic calamity unfolding. What is your answer to that? Not to shore up businesses? Universal basic income? I have an answer, one that will save businesses and individuals piles of their hard earned, and that's to get rid of the most unproductive and biggest drain on capital and incomes - the landlord, kill that parasite off, and heh presto we're all a great deal freer, with no need for government interference or aid. My local café give over half its income in rent and rates, absurd. And a hangover from feudal days. What's your answer to the coming economic calamity?

[Joe]

This virus is nothing compared to the economic calamity unfolding. What is your answer to that? Not to shore up businesses? Universal basic income? I have an answer, one that will save businesses and individuals piles of their hard earned, and that's to get rid of the most unproductive and biggest drain on capital and incomes - the landlord, kill that parasite off, and heh presto we're all a great deal freer, with no need for government interference or aid.

I think you should know that Marco is a landlord.

[Joe]

No, it ranges from sole traders up to multi-nationals. So a pretty good cross-section. Obviously there are some businesses, like you say, which have been completely screwed, however I don't think there was any realistic alternative to forcing them to close. Clearly the best solution, the only solution I can see for them is a vaccine. A vaccine is the only way we can return to complete normality. That's why I don't see why you have an issue with it, leaving aside all the Bill Gates microchip stuff of course.

That's the bit I'm looking forward to! Maybe it'll be like Fantastic Voyage, and we'll get microscopic submarines injected into our bloodstream.

[Marco]

No, it ranges from sole traders up to multi-nationals. So a pretty good cross-section. Obviously there are some businesses, like you say, which have been completely screwed, however I don't think there was any realistic alternative to forcing them to close.

Well, we could've adopted the Swedish model: https://www.ft.com/content/a2b4c18c-...7-ade4a82a548d

They seem to have done pretty well out of it, with currently 34,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, compared with our 261,000... Yes I know it would've been risky, but pretty much any strategy is risky when you're dealing with a killer virus. I just hate EXTREMES of anything - absolutes, 'all or nothings', 'blacks or whites'; I'm someone who's always preferred living somewhere near the more considered middle ground!

Therefore, like Sweden have done, I'd have adopted a rather more considered approach to dealing with this pandemic, and so what will be interesting to see when it's all over is who fared best (had the least deaths) overall among the countries that adopted strict lockdown policies, versus those who had a more considered, less extreme approach.

Clearly the best solution, the only solution I can see for them is a vaccine. A vaccine is the only way we can return to complete normality. That's why I don't see why you have an issue with it, leaving aside all the Bill Gates microchip stuff of course.

Of course the Gates thing is a BIG part of it, as I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that fucker's been involved in with a bargepole. He's had a great record in India and Africa with his vaccines so far, hasn't he? See below:



I simply can't rationalise a credible reason why a multi-billionaire, out-and-out businessman/entrepreneur/tech geek has a MANIA with vaccines... WHY?? It just leaves a VERY bad taste in my mouth, especially given his history to date in that area!

In terms of any vaccine involving Gates, I firmly believe that this type of technology could end up being be misused: https://www.sciencealert.com/an-invi...accinated-kids

The 'mark of the devil'? And you wouldn't even know! Nah, you can keep that shit. Plus, as you agreed yourself earlier:

I agree that although the virus is potentially deadly I agree it isn't deadly enough to warrant such an extreme measure.

Extreme measures or not, I don't believe that we *actually need* a vaccine to protect the vast majority of our population against a virus with such a low death rate. It stinks of simply creating more profit and control for the elite.

I'm a 'free spirit', fairly private, self-sufficient person, who is used to doing WHAT he wants WHEN he wants, whilst answering to no-one, and largely to divorce himself from the 'accepted norm' and stay as 'off-grid'/well away from the effects of 'the system' as possible - and I simply don't believe that my best interests would be looked after in our ever-growing more surveilled, newly vaccinated society!

It's fundamentally an affront to ALL my most valued principles!!

Now we're over the worst, it should be dealt with by heard immunity and simply left for our immune systems (and nature) to ultimately manage, as has indeed been the case with many similar things throughout the history of mankind.

And start getting life life back to some sort of normal - that's OUR normal, the one we used to know!!

Marco.

[Joe]

Based on some figures a scientist had worked out. It was on a video I watched. Will see if I can find it

Marco.

Let's hope it's bit more accurate than the last one you posted. But the information is easy enough to find. Basically, there's not a single 'death rate' for COVID; it varies widely between countries.

Here for example:

https://theconversation.com/fast-act...f-lives-139018

'Our latest research looked at 60 countries worldwide over the first 100 days of the pandemic and found several recurring themes.

Overall, countries that acted quickly and implemented stringent measures that kept most residents at home as the pandemic started to spread were able to reduce their daily COVID-19 death rate faster than countries with looser restrictions. Countries that had aggressive policy interventions in place before their first coronavirus death, such as Denmark and South Korea, tended to have fewer deaths.

We also found that countries with large vulnerable populations benefited more from fast, strict policy implementation than others. For example:

Countries with older populations that quickly implemented stringent measures saw their death rates fall about 9% after two weeks, compared to death rates falling 3.5% in the youngest countries with similar rules.

Similarly, countries in cooler climates, which offer more ideal circumstances for the virus to spread, benefited more from stringent measures than warmer countries near the equator.

Countries with greater population density, more personal freedom and large numbers of residents working in jobs that leave them vulnerable to exposure also benefited more from quick action, but the difference wasn’t as stark as for those with older populations.

In general, countries with stricter rules saw their death numbers peak after about 40 days, compared to 50 days for countries that also acted quickly but had looser restrictions.

Italy vs. South Korea

These findings, published May 18 as a National Bureau of Economy Research working paper, might help explain the lower mortality rates in South Korea and Germany. Both countries invoked stringent policies early on and invested in upgrading their medical capabilities.

On the other hand, Italy’s high mortality reflects the absence of stringent policies in place prior to COVID-19’s explosive mortality wave there, along with the large share of seniors living in congested regions and extended family households. Germany’s percentage of residents over age 65 is only slightly lower than Italy’s, yet it had far fewer deaths per capita.

[...]

The numbers stand out. In April, South Korea’s daily mortality rate peaked at 0.1 deaths per million residents, while Germany and Denmark had rates of roughly 2.8 deaths per million people. Sweden did not fare as well, with 10.6 deaths per million, nor did Italy at 13.6 per million or Spain at 18.6 per million.

The much lower death rate in Denmark also reflects the stricter policies enacted there, as opposed to more relaxed policies in Sweden.'

[Macca]

That's the bit I'm looking forward to! Maybe it'll be like Fantastic Voyage, and we'll get microscopic submarines injected into our bloodstream.

As long as it's got Raquel Welch at the height of her powers on board I'm all for it.

I'm not exactly sure what benefits having a microscopic Raquel Welch in my bloodstream would bring. But it certainly can't hurt.

[struth]

well they have had over 4k deaths and their cases are still on the rise... ours are on the wain. not so sure what either did was the right thing tbh... Im inclined to think we should have been able to test and trace from beginning.. At risk populations should have been put in cotton wool earlier, and all contacts regularly tested.
the rest of population should have distanced as best they could, wore masks etc and taken their chances, which for the younger, healthy population was a fairly good risk. It would have kept economy ticking over.. anyone entering country should have been tested before being allowed to mix..
all this should have happened in february

[Joe]

Now we're over the worst, it should be dealt with by heard immunity and simply left for our immune systems (and nature) to ultimately manage, as has indeed been the case with many similar things throughout the history of mankind!

Marco.

Actually, most of the big killer diseases of the past have been eliminated, not by herd immunity, but by vaccination/immunisation. That applies to what were the main killer diseases in my parent's childhood (TB, diphtheria, polio, smallpox) and the ones which were still prevalent when I was a nipper, but which are now (mostly) on the way to being eradicated (measles, mumps, rubella). Malaria, in Western Europe at least, was eliminated by draining the marshes where mosquitos breed, and cholera was eliminated by improved sanitation and clean drinking water, though both are still massively fatal diseases in poorer countries.

[Marco]

I think you should know that Marco is a landlord.

Lol, indeed (only two small properties, though, not a hill of beans really). But Mike's entitled to his opinion, as he's clearly had some bad experiences as a tenant, which I can totally sympathise with, as there are some right bastard landlords out there!

Marco.