Corona Virus

[Neil]

Early in this pandemic a Covid denier got really, really nasty with my wife at her business over wearing a mask, etc. My stepson Mark, 17, was in my wife's store that day. He walked up to the dude, didn't say a word and knocked him out cold, one shot. The police ended up charging the dude with assault for what he said to my wife. In Ohio you don't have to touch someone to be charged with assault. if you make a threat against someone and they take it seriously, they can run your ass up the flag pole. Mark wasn't charged with anything. He was defending his mom. Ohio sounds good EDIT: Oooh! You have the great Jim Jordan

[Neil]

Interesting - April was another example of a record setting month in the UK for lowest death rate... ever... But we're still viewing ourselves as in some sort of serious pandemic mode?

[MinionZombie]

Interesting - April was another example of a record setting month in the UK for lowest death rate... ever... But we're still viewing ourselves as in some sort of serious pandemic mode? Probably because they spunked a load of vaccines early on for the most vulnerable, rather than for those most likely to spread it, so now we're facing summer and opening up with huge chunks of people in the 'spreader' populace who are entirely unvaccinated. I've only just got mine scheduled and the second dose isn't until the arse-end of August! Then you've got selfish pricks who simply have to go flying to other countries for their holibobs despite there being so many places to visit and things to do in the UK. There's a distinct air of risk regarding cocking it up at the last hurdle by too much of a rush to just get back to doing exactly what we were all doing in 2019, when the job isn't quite finished yet.

[Neil]

Probably because they spunked a load of vaccines early on for the most vulnerable, rather than for those most likely to spread it, so now we're facing summer and opening up with huge chunks of people in the 'spreader' populace who are entirely unvaccinated. I've only just got mine scheduled and the second dose isn't until the arse-end of August! Then you've got selfish pricks who simply have to go flying to other countries for their holibobs despite there being so many places to visit and things to do in the UK. There's a distinct air of risk regarding cocking it up at the last hurdle by too much of a rush to just get back to doing exactly what we were all doing in 2019, when the job isn't quite finished yet. Understood, but with the lowest death rates for the UK in April, ever on record. Daily CV19 death figures out of a population for 70 million people being a single digit, and indeed flu now killing more people than CV19 in some areas. With us long past hurd immunity numbers. With most people over say 40-50 now having been vaccinated once or indeed even twice, and the average age of death still older than life expectancy, surely we need to IMHO move on? Especially with illness treatments, diagnosis and operations at record lows/delays? ie: I still believe when we look back at 2020, and compare it to the years that follow, more people will now die due to lock down measures eg: (missed treatments and undiagnosed cancers), than sadly died from CV19. People at risk should obviously continue to take sensible precautions. But for the rest of the public, time to get moving, while continuing to take simple sensible precautions IMHO. The difference in my mothers mental health over the past week or so is clear to me as she now starts to regain more of a social life. Note: She has a great grandchild she's never even held! "now we're facing summer and opening up with huge chunks of people" - Yes. Summer when the disease is far less of a concern/risk naturally. And with those "huge chunks of the public" no doubt having been vaccinated, and to whom the disease is only a tiny tiny risk. Surely at some point the economy and people's financial, medical and mental well being becomes more of a concern? "you've got selfish pricks who simply have to go flying to other countries" - If they've been vaccinated, take the prescribed tests before/after, what more can they do? And how will it be any different to say this time next year, indeed when there won't then even be tests before/after their trip? We clearly see a return to "normality" as having different hurdles and posing different risks... And I can fully understand how that is down to personal circumstances etc. My biggest concern has always been, weighing up if/when lockdown measures are doing more harm than good. ie: If lockdown measures are potentially reducing daily deaths from 20 to 10 (people who are generally older than live expectancy), but cancer deaths are going up by in effect 50 a day (of people many of whom are middle aged), then what are we achieving...? Note: I know people who over the past year or so who have committed suicide and people who have died from cancer which was not diagnosed.

[MinionZombie]

I certainly agree about the health service needing to get patients looked at - their very refusal to do so, and insistence on 'self-diagnosis' last year directly led to us not catching the warning signs of my Dad's severe stroke that happened a few weeks later (the day he had the stroke the useless GP had him filling out a form about fucking sleep apnea!!!) - but the health service doing it's fucking job is very different from a bunch of tosspots going abroad for a sunny holiday, very bloody different. Repeatedly the government has failed to properly secure our borders, and there's been so many stories about people who were advised to self-isolate after entering the country who then didn't do that at all. Each nation should be retaining their own populations for a while yet. Start opening up - but within your own borders - not mixing across borders and continents, it's too risky for that at the moment. This is a toe-dipping time, not a kowabunga time.

[Neil]

On a side note, it seems the possibility that the virus came/escaped from the Wuhan Lab - which of course was always a big suspicion - is now being discussed more openly.

[MinionZombie]

On a side note, it seems the possibility that the virus came/escaped from the Wuhan Lab - which of course was always a big suspicion - is now being discussed more openly. There certainly have been some worrying situations with social media etc blocking certain topics that are now being more widely talked about. This is the problem with every crank having an outlet to talk any old bollocks they like and share it around the world in an instant. There's so much crap that more legitimate sources then fight harder against it and start crossing certain lines that then, ironically, de-legitimise them. The loud-mouthed extremes (the spread of which inevitably grows wider gradually and sucks in decent folk who've had it with the other extreme side) need to shut the fuck up and let cool, rational heads sort things out.

[Neil]

There certainly have been some worrying situations with social media etc blocking certain topics that are now being more widely talked about. This is the problem with every crank having an outlet to talk any old bollocks they like and share it around the world in an instant. There's so much crap that more legitimate sources then fight harder against it and start crossing certain lines that then, ironically, de-legitimise them. The loud-mouthed extremes (the spread of which inevitably grows wider gradually and sucks in decent folk who've had it with the other extreme side) need to shut the fuck up and let cool, rational heads sort things out. Understood, but I personally feel far more comfortable letting people decide by having access to the spectrum of views, rather than for example a couple of entitled billionaires in Silicon Valley deciding what is best for people to hear, or not hear, according to their values, goals and agendas... Indeed, we're in the mad position at the moment where some of the Social Networks will hit you with a ban hammer for quoting information from the CDC, because seemingly Social Media Platforms just know the right science

[MinionZombie]

Understood, but I personally feel far more comfortable letting people decide by having access to the spectrum of views, rather than for example a couple of entitled billionaires in Silicon Valley deciding what is best for people to hear, or not hear, according to their values, goals and agendas... Indeed, we're in the mad position at the moment where some of the Social Networks will hit you with a ban hammer for quoting information from the CDC, because seemingly Social Media Platforms just know the right science Yeah, when it's absurd cases like blocking info from the CDC or other reputable bodies, but the problem lies when, essentially, anyone can say anything and dress it up as 'news' or 'fact'. Hell, we're at a place where one-sided polemics with bias built-in from the outset routinely pass for 'documentaries'. Basically, information has never been more dangerous due to how easily it can be manipulated or outright ignored. The response to certain 'information' always takes a generally political slant, when it should be taking a cold and hard factual slant - is it true or not? What are the sources? Are there any actual sources? Has someone misinterpreted a simple something and turned it into a bizarre conspiracy that, in reality, is completely unworkable once given the slightest scrutiny? Social Media has opening numerous cans of worms, and in ham-fisted attempts to deal with those cans of worms they're opening more cans of worms.

[Neil]

Yeah, when it's absurd cases like blocking info from the CDC or other reputable bodies, but the problem lies when, essentially, anyone can say anything and dress it up as 'news' or 'fact'. Hell, we're at a place where one-sided polemics with bias built-in from the outset routinely pass for 'documentaries'. Basically, information has never been more dangerous due to how easily it can be manipulated or outright ignored. The response to certain 'information' always takes a generally political slant, when it should be taking a cold and hard factual slant - is it true or not? What are the sources? Are there any actual sources? Has someone misinterpreted a simple something and turned it into a bizarre conspiracy that, in reality, is completely unworkable once given the slightest scrutiny? Social Media has opening numerous cans of worms, and in ham-fisted attempts to deal with those cans of worms they're opening more cans of worms. All true; Social Media deciding it is the arbiter of truth, science, morality and wisdom, and cancelling/controlling speech accordingly isn't working well.

[MinionZombie]

All true; Social Media deciding it is the arbiter of truth, science, morality and wisdom, and cancelling/controlling speech accordingly isn't working well. Some stuff is blatant bullshit and should indeed be labelled as bullshit or fake or doctored when they know that to be the case, because otherwise it's an abuse of the platform and outright lying to people and making up rubbish - an extremely dangerous tool to have in the hands of a politician, say, whose grasp of reality is weak at best thanks to their thundering sense of self-importance. Covering up things that haven't been disproven and an "inconvenient" to the current situation is another thing entirely and not cricket, what-what. All the more galling when some of those things start to become less out-there and closer to reality.

[Neil]

Some stuff is blatant bullshit and should indeed be labelled as bullshit or fake or doctored when they know that to be the case, because otherwise it's an abuse of the platform and outright lying to people and making up rubbish - an extremely dangerous tool to have in the hands of a politician, say, whose grasp of reality is weak at best thanks to their thundering sense of self-importance. Covering up things that haven't been disproven and an "inconvenient" to the current situation is another thing entirely and not cricket, what-what. All the more galling when some of those things start to become less out-there and closer to reality. True, but the problem is who defines "bullshit", "fake" or "doctored". Who choses those goal posts, and how trustworthy and grounded the reasoning. Better simply to just not permit the censorship to my mind. ie: Don't allow tech companies (& the few detached individuals at their reins) have more power in some ways that governments as regards information and free speech... eg: People are only just now allowed to freely discuss if the virus could have come from the Wuhan Lab, after nearly a year of the topic not being permitted on some tech platforms, because until now the platforms deemed it "harmful misinformation". And this trend/habit/censorship is a growing one...

[MinionZombie]

True, but the problem is who defines "bullshit", "fake" or "doctored". Who choses those goal posts, and how trustworthy and grounded the reasoning. Better simply to just not permit the censorship to my mind. ie: Don't allow tech companies (& the few detached individuals at their reins) have more power in some ways that governments as regards information and free speech... For example, when something has been widely discredited for quite clear reasons (e.g. video evidence of someone saying the complete opposite, or no such claimed evidence existing etc etc) - when you've got multiple reputable sources showing that something has been fact checked and proven to be rubbish. The problem is how to appropriately deal with morons who just spread nonsense and made-up junk throughout the web. We need a return to cold hard facts and evidence-based judgements.

[Neil]

For example, when something has been widely discredited for quite clear reasons (e.g. video evidence of someone saying the complete opposite, or no such claimed evidence existing etc etc) - when you've got multiple reputable sources showing that something has been fact checked and proven to be rubbish. The problem is how to appropriately deal with morons who just spread nonsense and made-up junk throughout the web. We need a return to cold hard facts and evidence-based judgements. Understood - But I suspect the reasons why Social Media declared discussion of the virus possibly coming from the Wuhan Lab as "harmful misinformation", and journalists even declaring it as "racist," could all be put down to supposedly reputable reasons. Heck, I see flat earthers as about as toxically anti-science as possible, but even I think they should be free to air their views, if only so the discussion is kept in the open to be counter argued. I fully understand the thinking behind trying to keep such folks away from the town square if we believe their views are "rubbish". BUT, it just doesn't work IMHO because invariably the goal posts move more and more, which is exactly what's happening now... Ultimately, IMHO, if it's legal speech, it should remain free speech, especially on social media, by law! But at the moment we have Social Media deciding who has the freedom to speak across the planet, simply according to their own desires and agendas, which I don't see as good. We can only hope some of the legal actions in American States to force the Social Media platforms to adhere more to basic principles of free speech, actually achieve just that

[MinionZombie]

Heck, I see flat earthers as about as toxically anti-science as possible, but even I think they should be free to air their views, if only so the discussion is kept in the open to be counter argued. I fully understand the thinking behind trying to keep such folks away from the town square if we believe their views are "rubbish". BUT, it just doesn't work IMHO because invariably the goal posts move more and more, which is exactly what's happening now... I certainly agree about keeping conversation and debate out in the open, because hiding it away into dark corners helps nobody - that just transforms it into something much worse, completely unchecked and unchallenged, and you end up with bizarro conspiracies that lead to mass criminality and even death at worst. With the flat earther thing in particular, that documentary on Netflix basically just lets them sink their own bullshit and simply shines a light on the utterly absurd thinking of them, while also hinting at certain problems in their own lives that may have pushed them towards that, or encouraged them to fully invest in that garbage for some sort of reason. It's better to examine ideas openly and without extreme political responses. Fox News is dreadful, while CNN thinks it's superior, but every time I switch over it's shucking the same 'fear and loathing' schtick with heavily opioned takes on events and lengthy polemics whining about stuff that a news channel shouldn't be touching. Just the facts - how hard is that? It didn't used to be. The days of Michael Buerk and Moira Stewart are long gone at this point. 24 hour news is just as bad, in different ways, as social media in terms of corrupting the truth and the very notion of public conversation and debate. Better to tackle an idea head on with a calm and clear head, than label those of differing views as stupid (or any other number of terms that only serve to split people apart and further entrench - and expand - the extremes of left and right). Fucking wankers.