1539 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

Hip, you may not be aware since its in German. But its perfect satire of one corona-mindset, as also you expose.

 

Gunnar Kaiser studied philosophy, German philology, and Romance studies

 

That explains. Because its overall a satire about the human desire having everything told, not wanting to think for oneself and totalitarian governance (at least some German-speaking had already enough of), and its existential implications. Nothing even far medical.
 

Edited by pamojja, 09 February 2021 - 01:39 PM.

[pamojja]

Unfortunately,
 
This thread has devolved from the topic.

The title of this thread: 'Coronavirus information with context', doesn't mean as some would have, only being allowed to discuss what is allowed after thought-policing. Discussing the rampant thought-policing is one of its contexts.

[Hip]

Because its overall a satire about the human desire having everything told, not wanting to think for oneself and totalitarian governance

 

Ordinarily such satire would be valid and desirable. But there are circumstances where thinking for yourself becomes very difficult, because the subject is so complex.  

 

Nobody would consider performing brain surgery on themselves, because such tasks require expert knowledge and specialist equipment. Yet people with no knowledge of physics and no supercomputers to run climate models are happy to provide their own opinions on climate change, and believe their views to be just as valid as the experts.

 

No matter how complex a subject, there will be the ultracrepidarian "man in the pub" who, after a few beers, thinks their opinion on climate change is just as valid as an international teams of scientific experts who have spent all their life studying the subject.

 

 

 

We are living in a time of right-wing populism, where many sections of society, especially the working classes, have become disillusioned with the intellectual experts who control their lives, experts who are often of a liberal persuasion. I think it is right for the working classes to be disillusioned with the experts, because these experts have not treated the working classes fairly. Indeed, in the UK, the socialist Labour Party was completely infiltrated by liberals, such that the Labour Party is no longer a true left-wing socialist party, and no longer represents the work man and woman. 

 

But unfortunately I think this justified political disillusionment sometimes extends itself into an unjustified general disillusionment, which then makes people question or disbelieve even medical experts. Much of the young generation think coronavirus is just a big joke, they don't believe it's really happening at all. Which is sad. 

[pamojja]

But unfortunately I think this justified political disillusionment sometimes extends itself into an unjustified general disillusionment, which then makes people question or disbelieve even medical experts.

Medical experts are no experts in basic human rights either. Otherwise the Nuernberg code would never have to be written (https://en.m.wikiped.../Nuremberg_Code)

Much of the young generation think coronavirus is just a big joke, they don't believe it's really happening at all. Which is sad.

The problem is really not those young who believe its a joke (which I guess the minority), but the uniquivocal adhominems against anyone asking pertinent questions. Like you did with anyone questioning, by your accusation of shizotypy.

One receives insults after asking the most obvious:

Why, even according to the WHO, the livelyhood of about 1.6 billion is endangered by the crude countermeasures scientifically never proven, and probably an additional 150 million children pushed into poverty. If for example the overall excess mortality now reaching that what it always has been before only 2004 in the worst hit nation the US, without any fearmongering at all?

 PSX_20210209_204918.jpg   77.63KB   0 downloads

 PSX_20210209_205123.jpg   72.88KB   0 downloads

 PSX_20210209_205229.jpg   108.79KB   0 downloads

 PSX_20210209_205326.jpg   54.87KB   0 downloads

Really just a common sense question. Which should be able to be answered once and for all. Nobody even tries, one just recives insults for asking the most pertinent.

Why should I fear covid, when I will die multiple more times likely of CVD or cancer? Of which I do also not life in fear. And due to unscientific speculations a billion people also don't have to loose their lifelyhoods for.

Edited by pamojja, 09 February 2021 - 07:51 PM.

[Hip]

adhominems against anyone asking pertinent questions

 
It is not an ad hominem attack to ask whether the person who is going to perform brain surgery on you has the appropriate qualifications and experience. Likewise, it is not an ad hominem attack if I question the qualifications of Gunnar Kaiser when he makes anti-lockdown comments. 
 
Someone like Gunnar with a background in Romance studies I would not want performing brain surgery on me, and likewise I would not want him to make decisions on what is the right way to handle a viral pandemic, because he has zero qualifications in that area.
 
 
 
 
Pamojja, you present yourself as knowing all the answers, but you have not provided the solution to one of the most important issues in this pandemic, which is protecting the hospital system from overload. Perhaps you were not even aware of this hospital overload issue. But I am going to address this issue now, and don't try to dodge the question.
 
I am going to put you on the spot, and ask you to provide your solution to this hospital overload problem, which I will explain here:
 
Let's say we go with your desire to lift lockdowns and other coronavirus controlling measures. We know that lockdowns have reduced winter flu cases by 95%, so they clearly are working to prevent viral transmission. If we remove these lockdowns, it's clear we are going to get an exponential explosion of coronavirus cases, as well as a resurgence in flu.
 
In that exponential explosion, all those COVID patients who are very sick and need hospital ICU care will totally overload the hospital system. That overloaded system will then affect everyone, young or old, who needs hospital treatment for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses. Even with the present lockdowns which limit COVID cases, cancer patients have not been getting the necessary treatment because of cancelled operations. Imagine how bad it would be if the pandemic was left to explode exponentially, which would occur if lockdowns are lifted.    
 
Not to mention the sheer horror and trauma that nurses and doctors would have to face, if the exponential carnage of COVID death that you so desire were allow to occur. Do you not care about these hospital staff and the horrors they witness? Do you not care that they may end up with PTSD or other mental health issues because of the strain of looking after an exponential explosion of dying COVID patients?
 
Plus once we overload hospitals so that they cannot provide oxygen and ventilators to COVID patients, a higher percentage of people are going to die of COVID. So you get exponentially more COVID cases, you get a much higher percentage of those COVID cases dying, and you get lots of other people dying like cancer patients because the hospitals are too overloaded to give them life-saving treatment.
 
That's the hospital overload scenario, and it would be dire if it were allowed to occur. And it would occur if we implemented your policies.
 

 
So, Pamojja, what is your solution to the hospital overload scenario? 
 
Would you tell all the old people that they cannot come to hospital if they get COVID, and must stay at home to die by frightening asphyxiation all on their own? Is that your answer? Because that is totally inhumane if that is your approach. But that's what would happen once hospitals are totally overloaded.
 
It's bad enough that you don't even care that exponentially more old people will die if we follow your anti-lockdown policies; but even worse that you want to deny them hospital care as they are dying, and want them to just asphyxiate at home. 
 
 
 

 

Why, even according to the WHO, the livelyhood of about 1.6 billion is endangered by the crude countermeasures

The world economy will recover quickly from the pandemic, the economy always does recover. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 02:19 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

 
It is not an ad hominem attack to ask whether the person who is going to perform brain surgery on you has the appropriate qualifications and experience. Likewise, it is not an ad hominem attack if I question the qualifications of Gunnar Kaiser when he makes anti-lockdown comments. 
 
Someone like Gunnar with a background in Romance studies I would not want performing brain surgery on me, and likewise I would not want him to make decisions on what is the right way to handle a viral pandemic, because he has zero qualifications in that area.
 
 
 
 
Pamojja, you present yourself as knowing all the answers, but you have not provided the solution to one of the most important issues in this pandemic, which is protecting the hospital system from overload. Perhaps you were not even aware of this hospital overload issue. But I am going to address this issue now, and don't try to dodge the question.
 
I am going to put you on the spot, and ask you to provide your solution to this hospital overload problem, which I will explain here:
 
Let's say we go with your desire to lift lockdowns and other coronavirus controlling measures. We know that lockdowns have reduced winter flu cases by 95%, so they clearly are working to prevent viral transmission. If we remove these lockdowns, it's clear we are going to get an exponential explosion of coronavirus cases, as well as a resurgence in flu.
 
In that exponential explosion, all those COVID patients who are very sick and need hospital ICU care will totally overload the hospital system. That overloaded system will then affect everyone, young or old, who needs hospital treatment for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses. Even with the present lockdowns which limit COVID cases, cancer patients have not been getting the necessary treatment because of cancelled operations. Imagine how bad it would be if the pandemic was left to explode exponentially, which would occur if lockdowns are lifted.    
 
Not to mention the sheer horror and trauma that nurses and doctors would have to face, if the exponential carnage of COVID death that you so desire were allow to occur. Do you not care about these hospital staff and the horrors they witness? Do you not care that they may end up with PTSD or other mental health issues because of the strain of looking after an exponential explosion of dying COVID patients?
 
Plus once we overload hospitals so that they cannot provide oxygen and ventilators to COVID patients, a higher percentage of people are going to die of COVID. So you get exponentially more COVID cases, you get a much higher percentage of those COVID cases dying, and you get lots of other people dying like cancer patients because the hospitals are too overloaded to give them life-saving treatment.
 
That's the hospital overload scenario, and it would be dire if it were allowed to occur. And it would occur if we implemented your policies.
 

 
So, Pamojja, what is your solution to the hospital overload scenario? 
 
Would you tell all the old people that they cannot come to hospital if they get COVID, and must stay at home to die by frightening asphyxiation all on their own? Is that your answer? Because that is totally inhumane if that is your approach. But that's what would happen once hospitals are totally overloaded.
 
It's bad enough that you don't even care that exponentially more old people will die if we follow your anti-lockdown policies; but even worse that you want to deny them hospital care as they are dying, and want them to just asphyxiate at home. 
 
 
 

 

The world economy will recover quickly from the pandemic, the economy always does recover. 

 

Thought you might have heard by now...  Keeping COVID patients out of the hospital couldn't be any easier.  

 

https://hcqmeta.com/

 

https://ivmmeta.com/

 

https://news.yahoo.c...-164718928.html

 

A few bucks worth of tablets?  A generic steroid inhaler?  These treatments have been known for over half a year.  They don't work unless you use them.  

 

Treat patients early, and few will ever see the inside of a hospital.  Keep resisting this, and we all fall down.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 10 February 2021 - 05:47 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Diagnosed with the 'rona at 116?  Meh, no worries...  Just let me rest a bit.  

 

https://time.com/593...person-covid19/

 

PARIS — A 116-year-old French nun who is believed to be the world’s second-oldest person has survived COVID-19 and is looking forward to celebrating her 117th birthday on Thursday.

[pamojja]

So, Pamojja, what is your solution to the hospital overload scenario? 

 

You couldn't respond even further strawman, than all that.

 

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.^[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

 

The problem is really not those young who believe its a joke (which I guess the minority), but the uniquivocal adhominems against anyone asking pertinent questions. Like you did with anyone questioning, by your accusation of shizotypy.

One receives insults after asking the most obvious:

Why, even according to the WHO, the livelyhood of about 1.6 billion is endangered by the crude countermeasures scientifically never proven, and probably an additional 150 million children pushed into poverty. If for example the overall excess mortality now reaching that what it always has been before only 2004 in the worst hit nation the US, without any fearmongering at all?

Really just a common sense question. Which should be able to be answered once and for all. Nobody even tries, one just recives insults for asking the most pertinent.

Why should I fear covid, when I will die multiple more times likely of CVD or cancer? Of which I do also not life in fear. And due to unscientific speculations a billion people also don't have to loose their lifelyhoods for.

 

Last time I was in hospital for a week in 2006 it was no different. Upon leaving the involved internist only excused herself from a final consultation, because she's been on uninterrupted duty for 24 hrs! That wasn't even in the flu season. The health-care system has been made 'efficient' to the point, its in constant system-overload already for decades.

 

Absurdly not pertinent to the question, why should I fear this virus itself?

 

Why I should silence my conscience about multiple millions more unneccesary deaths by a cure worse than the disease, than this virus itself?

[Hip]

Thought you might have heard by now...  Keeping COVID patients out of the hospital couldn't be any easier.  
 
https://hcqmeta.com/
 
https://ivmmeta.com/
 
https://news.yahoo.c...-164718928.html
 
A few bucks worth of tablets?  A generic steroid inhaler?  These treatments have been known for over half a year.  They don't work unless you use them.  
 
Treat patients early, and few will ever see the inside of a hospital.  Keep resisting this, and we all fall down.

 
Not hydroxychloroquine again, the drug that Donald Trump said would save the world?
 
There are 195 countries in the world; can you name any country which uses these drugs to prevent hospitalizations? Developing countries would be particularly eager to use these cheap drugs if they worked, because these countries can least afford the costs of hospitalizations. But we don't hear of any country which has solved the hospitalization problem.

 

Your last item budesonide (a corticosteroid) looks interesting, as we have already seen that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduces death rate. However, these are preliminary results, and no proof that they will work until larger scale trials are performed. As you know, many small scale trials of drugs which show promising results do not pan out when larger trials are conducted.   
 
Hopefully we will at some point find or develop drugs which can prevent hospitalizations; but until that point, the hospital overload problem remains one of the most critical problems of the pandemic.
 

 

 

Why I should silence my conscience about multiple millions more unneccesary deaths by a cure worse than the disease, than this virus itself?

 

I asked a simple and direct question about the hospital overload problem, yet strangely you have not been able to answer it.

 

Are you having trouble understanding the question? I can if you like try to explain it in more simple terms. Or perhaps others here can guide you to a better understanding. 

 

It is actually a very simple question. 

 

I know science is a difficult subject; that's why we usually let the experts deal with it.

 

But if you are going engage in these discussions, you have to be able to answer the difficult questions and address the thorny issues. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 02:56 PM.

[Hip]

There are always members of the public who think they know better than the people in charge. The people in charge (politicians, scientists, etc) get tough questions asked of them by journalists, and when these people in charge try to dodge a difficult question, the journalists will typically ask the question again, more forcefully, to try to get the politician to answer.

 

So why shouldn't we give the same journalistic grilling to know-it-all members of the public? 

 

If you are coming to a public forum and giving your opinions on how to handle the pandemic, you should face the questions asked of you.

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 03:18 PM.

[pamojja]

I asked a simple and direct question about the hospital overload problem, yet strangely you have not been able to answer it.

 

You only asked an unrelated question to evade the more pertinent questions. How childish to accuse of evation tactics you're the master of?

 

The hospital-system overload - unrelated to the in the historical context insignificant excess-mortality not worth calling it even a pandemic - is since decades self-inflicted. Therein lies also its solution.

 

Who isn't even reading here?

 

[Dorian Grey]

 
Not hydroxychloroquine again, the drug that Donald Trump said would save the world?
 
There are 195 countries in the world; can you name any country which uses these drugs to prevent hospitalizations? Developing countries would be particularly eager to use these cheap drugs if they worked, because these countries can least afford the costs of hospitalizations. But we don't hear of any country which has solved the hospitalization problem.

 

Your last item budesonide (a corticosteroid) looks interesting, as we have already seen that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduces death rate. However, these are preliminary results, and no proof that they will work until larger scale trials are performed. As you know, many small scale trials of drugs which show promising results do not pan out when larger trials are conducted.   
 
Hopefully we will at some point find or develop drugs which can prevent hospitalizations; but until that point, the hospital overload problem remains one of the most critical problems of the pandemic.
 

 

 

 

I asked a simple and direct question about the hospital overload problem, yet strangely you have not been able to answer it.

 

Are you having trouble understanding the question? I can if you like try to explain it in more simple terms. Or perhaps others here can guide you to a better understanding. 

 

It is actually a very simple question. 

 

I know science is a difficult subject; that's why we usually let the experts deal with it.

 

But if you are going engage in these discussions, you have to be able to answer the difficult questions and address the thorny issues. 

 

Around half a century ago, I became rather fond of cannabis.  Was rather glad to hear it had already been studied for over half a century, without any major issues regarding harm being found.  Still, medical boffins would parrot out their mantra "more studies are needed" before we can stop throwing folks who use this in jail.  

 

To this day, & much to my amusement, every time cannabis appears in the news, the boffins are saying it hasn't been studied enough for safety.  I understand the scientific method is a continuum, without established beginnings or end, but at some point, you've got to allow for consensus, if any progress is to be made.  

 

In the heat of pandemic, time is of the essence.  We may well be studying therapeutics for coronavirus for another century or so, but until we start allowing doctors to treat, & patients to try promising therapeutics, no progress can occur.  

 

It's been over a year now...  How much longer would you like to wait before we start trying a few outpatient therapies?  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 10 February 2021 - 04:01 PM.

[bladedmind]

There are always members of the public who think they know better than the people in charge. The people in charge (politicians, scientists, etc) get tough questions asked of them by journalists, and when these people in charge try to dodge a difficult question, the journalists will typically ask the question again, more forcefully, to try to get the politician to answer.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ian_personality

 

 

The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people.

[Hip]

https://en.wikipedia...ian_personality

 

Who is suggesting you cannot question authority? That is essential, and in fact goes on all the time, especially in science. Science is not a single voice of one person, but an interacting community of millions of scientists around the world who have different views and different ideas. Out of that interacting community usually comes a consensus view, although that's not always the case.

 

The consensus view for example is that the theory of relativity is correct; but that does not mean there are not scientists questioning whether the theory of relativity might in fact be wrong, or might not hold in certain circumstances. The reason science is successful is because there is a lot of scrutiny and questioning in the scientific community. 

 

But in order to question the theory of relativity, or any theory of science, you first have to be able to understand it. It's no good asking someone who has no background in physics and no ability with mathematics what they think of relativity, because they won't be able to understand it.

 

Same is true with complex phenomena like pandemics, which require understanding of mathematics, computer modeling, biology, medicine, virology, etc. 

 

 

 

I suggest that the person here resisting being questioned is pamojja. Everyone knows that the hospital overload problem is one of the most critical issues in this pandemic. In the UK, the government uses the slogan: "Stay Home • Save Lives • Protect the NHS". The NHS is the UK socialized medicine system. So the message is clear: we are going into lockdown not only to prevent people dying, but also to prevent the calamity of hospital overload.

 

But when I asked Pamojja how he would deal with this critical issue of hospital overload, he does not answer. He is presenting himself as an authority on handling the pandemic, and believes he knows a better way forward, yet when I question him on this issue, he is evasive. 

 

I am trying to make the point that in this pandemic, preventing hospital overload is as critical an issue as saving lives and preventing deaths. 

 

Anyone who claims to offer a better approach in dealing with this pandemic must therefore explain how they would prevent the calamity of hospital overload.

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 05:14 PM.

[pamojja]

The person here resisting being questioned is pamojja. Everyone knows that the hospital overload problem is one of the most critical issues in this pandemic.

 

To the third time - though you will continue to deny I answered each time on the spot already 2 times -

the NIH has been saved to death, even to a worse extent than some other countries. Since its self-inflicted, it can be repaired again.

 

And to the third time you evaded the most pertinent questions to this virus:

 

Why should I fear it, if there are many much more likely diseases I will die of?

 

Why I have to silence my consience about telling we are killing more people with the cure than the disease could ever cause itself?

[Hip]

To the third time - though you will continue to deny I answered each time on the spot already 2 times -

the NIH has been saved to death, even to a worse extent than some other countries. Since its self-inflicted, it can be repaired again.

 

And to the third time you evaded the most pertinent questions to this virus:

 

Why should I fear it, if there are many much more likely diseases I will die of?

 

Why I have to silence my consience about telling we are killing more people with the cure than the disease could ever cause itself?

 

Sorry, but you are not even beginning to address the issue of hospital overload. It appears that you do not even understand the question.

 

 

There is nothing to suggest that lockdowns are killing people, so you are basing your own question on a fantasy, not a fact.

 

We all know that lockdown is not very nice. However, compared to the hardships that other generations have had to face — like for example the generation in the US who were drafted to fight in Vietnam — the hardship of lockdown does not seem that severe.

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 05:38 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

At the risk of stating the obvious, hospitals are overloaded because they are the only place western governments are allowing patients to be treated.  

 

Allow patients to be treated outside of the hospital setting, & most will avoid becoming hospitalized, thus solving the problem.  

[pamojja]

There is nothing to suggest that lockdowns are killing people, so you are basing your own question on a fantasy, not a fact.

 

We all know that lockdown is not very nice. However, compared to the hardships that other generations have had to face — like for example the generation in the US who were drafted to fight in Vietnam — the hardship of lockdown does not seem that severe.

 

You probably never been to such countries like Burma, Malawi or Honduras So you don't know that there people are dying like flies from conditions easily treatable, but unreachable for most with the 1,- per day kind of saleries. Also people are dying not only from illness, but since time immemorial of hunger too.

 

Now an additional 1.6 billion loosing their lifelyhood mostly in the informal sector, most of those of course not in the west you fool. There won't be unemployment benefits, and with a casual appendicitis one's expired. If one can't pay any treatment. An additonal 100 million children pushed into such poverty means a large part wont make it into adulthood.

 

With your limited world-experience you really don't know what you talk about.

 

Edited by pamojja, 10 February 2021 - 06:29 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

There are always members of the public who think they know better than the people in charge. The people in charge (politicians, scientists, etc) get tough questions asked of them by journalists, and when these people in charge try to dodge a difficult question, the journalists will typically ask the question again, more forcefully, to try to get the politician to answer.

 

So why shouldn't we give the same journalistic grilling to know-it-all members of the public? 

 

If you are coming to a public forum and giving your opinions on how to handle the pandemic, you should face the questions asked of you.

 

I'd just like to point out that the "people in charge" are universally politicians. Sure, there may be a high level bureaucrat like Dr. Fauci nominally in charge, but these people are in every case answerable to the political leadership. They can resign of course, but at the end of the day they are not "in charge".

 

And what do we know about the political leadership of any country and of any political persuasion? We know that whether left or right, their expertise is in various social skills - namely the skill required to get people to vote for them. That is no assurance of any sort of technical or scientific knowledge and is generally actually the reverse.

 

"Ah" you might say "but the politicians that I like follow the science". Don't kid yourself. Each side picks and chooses "the science" that tells them exactly what they want to hear. The viewpoint that validates whatever policies they desired to implement beforehand. And there are plenty of scientists willing to sign up and fulfill that role.  

 

So if someone thinks they "know better than the people in charge" there's a not insignificant chance that they may be right. I have no doubt that Hip would think he knows better than Trump. And plenty here probably think they know better than Biden. And each side of this is probably right. And the same would go for the respective politicians in your country. 

 

None of us should be overly impressed with "the people in charge", regardless of who is in charge at any given moment.

[Hip]

Now an additional 1.6 billion loosing their lifelyhood mostly in the informal sector, most of those of course not in the west you fool. There won't be unemployment benefits, and with a casual appendicitis one's expired. If one can't pay any treatment. An additonal 100 million children pushed into such poverty means a large part wont make it into adulthood.

 

This is just another way that you are dodging the question I put to you about hospital overload.

 

If third world countries cannot afford to pay for their populations to stay at home in lockdown, then they may need to get out to work. The rich West has the luxury of paying people to stay home. But if a developing country cannot afford that, then their government will have to make different decisions.

 

It's no secret that life is a lot harder and more precarious in developing countries compared to the first world. That's the unfortunate reality. 

 

But that does not affect the decisions we make in the West. We have the luxury of wealth.

 

 

Anyway, still waiting to hear your plans to tackle the hospital overload issue (in the West, not in Timbuctoo). 

[Hip]

"Ah" you might say "but the politicians that I like follow the science". Don't kid yourself. Each side picks and chooses "the science" that tells them exactly what they want to hear. The viewpoint that validates whatever policies they desired to implement beforehand. And there are plenty of scientists willing to sign up and fulfill that role.  

 

Yes, to an extent that is true. 

 

At the beginning of the pandemic, the UK government under Boris Johnson was criticized for using too small a set of scientists, so were not listening to the full landscape of scientific views, theories and ideas that were being proposed. 

 

It does not help that it was a right-wing government, which tend to be less intellectual than the left wing. And the pandemic is something which requires an intellectual understanding.

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 09:13 PM.

[Hip]

At the risk of stating the obvious, hospitals are overloaded because they are the only place western governments are allowing patients to be treated.  

 

Hospitals are the only places which have all the necessary equipment, expertise and medical staff to handle a COVID case. This is not something you can delegate to the local parish or some local community center.

 

Are you guys aware how COVID cases are currently being treated?

 

When the first wave of COVID cases hit hospitals, doctors were reporting seeing patients slowly asphyxiating, terrified and gasping for breath, with a look of horror on the patient's face as they realized they were becoming unable to draw in sufficient breath and oxygen. It was not a peaceful death at all, but one filled with tension, anxiety and horror for the patient. Anyone who has ever experienced the situation of not being able to get their breath — asthmatics for example — will tell you that this is a very scary experience.

 

Not only were COVID patients dying in this horrible way, with stress, anxiety and fear written all across their faces, but the poor nurses and doctors were witnessing this horror multiple times a day. That's liable to give these medical staff PTSD and other mental health problems. I'd like to place all these scum anti-lockdown and anti-mask protestors into a COVID for a month, and let them experience these horrors.

 

Anyway, that was the first wave. Nowadays when COVID patients start entering the severe illness phase, they are placed into a medically-induced coma. This requires skillful use of barbiturate drugs, and IV nutrition. If they then require a ventilator, it is then easier to insert, and less traumatizing for the patient. If the patient does get worse and worse, and eventually asphyxiates to death, mercifully they are not aware of that horrible way to die, because they are in this coma. If they manage to pull through, then they are taken out of the coma, and they did not have to go through that touch-and-go period where they don't know if they are going to live or die.

 

This medically-induced coma is a far more humane way of treating COVID patients, but it requires a great deal of equipment and medical expertise. It can only be done in a hospital setting. 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 09:15 PM.

[pamojja]

This is just another way that you are dodging the question I put to you about hospital overload.

..Anyway, still waiting to hear your plans to tackle the hospital overload issue (in the West, not in Timbuctoo).

Not in Timbuctoo, but here in Austria hospitals have been emptied in anticipation of covid, but actually never experienced overload. As it was common before.

For the fourth time: Don't save your NHS to death, and you too wont experience hospital-system overload.


And again for the fourth time: Why should anyone fear a virus, when one doesn't fear the much higher likelyhood of dying from cancer or CVD???

Why many more should die of the unfortunate countermeasures, then the virus itself???

Death by Lockdown

13th October 2020
Tom Woods 14 Comments

I almost don’t blame people who are unaware of this information, because you have to go to the UK, usually, or the international press in general, to find it. But here is some of the collateral damage caused by lockdowns.

(1) In the UK, cancer authorities have been warning that the lockdowns will wind up leading to as many or more avoidable cancer deaths than COVID deaths there — as many as 60,000, according to one estimate.

The UK’s Sunday Express – not exactly some obscure dispatch – reports that increased cancer fatalities will result from the redeployment of health resources caused by COVID hysteria. The BBC says the same. In fact, says Richard Sullivan, a professor of cancer and global health at King’s College London and director of its Institute of Cancer Policy:

The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself. The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering. Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel and breast. When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown is lifted, the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.

According to the Daily Mail on October 6:

Vital operations were cancelled and patients missed out on potentially life-saving therapy in the spring because tackling Covid-19 became the sole focus of the health service, instead of cancer and other cruel diseases.

Almost 2.5 million people missed out on cancer screening, referrals or treatment at the height of lockdown, even though the NHS was never overwhelmed — despite fears it would be crippled by the pandemic.

Experts now fear the number of people dying as a result of delays triggered by the treatment of coronavirus patients could even end up being responsible for as many deaths as the pandemic itself.

(2) A United Nations report in April warned that economic hardship generated by the radical interruptions of commerce could result in hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths in 2020. The report further warned that 42 million to 66 million children could fall into extreme poverty as a result of the crisis.

Even The Atlantic had to admit, “When you ask them to stay home, in many cases you’re asking them to starve.”

And in the UK, The Telegraph says, “The absurd demand that developing countries adopt economically disastrous lockdowns is driving untold misery.”

(3) The Well Being Trust in Oakland, California, released a study that seeks to determine how many “deaths of despair” (from drug or alcohol abuse or suicide) will occur as a result of the pandemic, including the lockdowns. Their estimate, according to CBS News: about 75,000.

(4) UNICEF warned of 1.2 million child deaths — “visits to health care centers are declining due to lockdowns, curfews and transport disruptions, and as communities remain fearful of infection.”

(5) Oxford University’s Sunetra Gupta has pointed to warnings by global authorities that as many as 130 million people are at risk of starvation thanks to the possibility of famine in several dozen places around the world, brought on by lockdown-induced disruptions of supply chains.

(6) Suicidal ideation is massively on the rise in the United States.

The federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports on percentages of people who have considered suicide within the previous 12 months, organized by age.

People between the ages of 18 and 25 fluctuate between 6.8 percent and 11 percent.

Now, from the Centers for Disease Control, we find that percentage (for the 18-24 group) has leaped to 25.5 percent — and this survey asks not about the previous 12 months, like the earlier one, but whether they’ve considered suicide just in the past 30 days.

(7) The CDC estimates 93,814 non-COVID “excess deaths” this year, including 42,427 from cardiovascular conditions, 10,686 from diabetes, and 3646 from cancer, and many of these were caused by the cancellation of “nonessential” care in the midst of the COVID panic.

Meanwhile, almost no American hospitals were actually “overwhelmed” during 2020, despite what your Facebook friends told you. In April alone, 1.4 million health care workers were furloughed because the hospitals were empty. In May NPR reported on those field hospitals that were assembled to take care of the surge of people who were supposed to appear: “U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients.”

(8) According to The Lancet, “During lockdown people with dementia or severe mental illness had a higher risk of excess death.” Dementia patients had a 53% greater chance of death because of lockdowns and elderly patients with severe mental illness had a 123% greater chance of death.

(9) As a direct result of the lockdowns, the New York Times reports that there will be 1.4 million excess tuberculosis deaths, half a million excess HIV deaths, and 385,000 malaria deaths.

See why “public health” shouldn’t be confused with “the monomaniacal fixation on one virus”?

Meanwhile, if you look at the charts for country after country and state after state, you will not be able to tell which ones locked down, how hard they locked down, when they lifted their lockdown, whether they had a mask mandate, when they imposed such a mandate, and when and if they lifted that mandate. The charts show zero correlation. Zero.

For example: for masks, click here. “If we only wore masks at the beginning this wouldn’t have happened” is hereby refuted.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions — voodoo, we might well call it now — appear to have accomplished nothing, apart from creating all this avoidable misery around the world.


Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/death-by-lockdown/

Edited by pamojja, 10 February 2021 - 09:29 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

It does not help that it was a right-wing government, which tend to be less intellectual than the left wing. And the pandemic is something which requires an intellectual understanding.

 

We're delving too deep into politics here, but let me assure you that each side thinks they have a monopoly on the truth, most definitely including scientific truth.  "The other side is less intellectual than my side" is something you think because we all like to think we're superior to our fellow man. It's a very self congratulatory mindset.

 

I'll remind you that Italy and France have left of center governments and each achieved nearly identical results to the UK and the US.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 February 2021 - 09:29 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Don't know about the UK, but here in America doctors are NOT treating patients at all until they are near death. At the critical moment of diagnosis, with multiple outpatient therapy options available, patients are told to go home & take Tylenol & call 911 if they become short of breath or start turning blue.  Precious days pass where patients are not in need of induced coma, but something to prevent progression to this stage of disease.  

 

Evil political doctors taunt them with promises of magical therapies like remdesivir, that they can't have unless & until they can get admitted to hospital.  Is it any wonder patients are clamoring to get admitted?  My gal works in a hospital, & she says many patients call 911 every day & are ambulanced off to the hospital, only to be sent back home again.  Not sick enough yet...  NO REMDESIVIR for YOU!  

 

Doctors want to treat these patients, and the patients want treatment, but Fauci says NO!  No outpatient treatment = overcrowded hospitals.  No great mystery about this.  

 

 

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Don't know about the UK, but here in America doctors are NOT treating patients at all until they are near death. 

 

That's definitely been a problem in the US, and I think elsewhere as well. We know that if an intervention is going to help, it is far more likely to succeed if given early in the disease process.

 

And yet, you have even high risk (particularly elderly) patients being told to stay home and monitor their situation and call back if they have falling O2 sats or difficulty breathing. An elderly patient at that point can go downhill very rapidly at that stage.

 

Early on it might not have mattered much. There were no generally accepted therapies that really worked very well (remdesivir sure as hell doesn't). But now monoclonal antibody therapy will make a significant difference if given early enough. But, too many times patients only get it when they are already critically ill.

[Hip]

Not in Timbuctoo, but here in Austria hospitals have been emptied in anticipation of covid, but actually never experienced overload. As it was common before.

 

In the words of Homer Simpson: D'oh!

 

Obviously with multiple anti-coronavirus spread measures in place, the hospitals are not going to be overloaded. That is one of the main aims of lockdowns, as I previously mentioned!

 

Good God! I really feel like banging my head against the wall in my efforts to try to explain these things to you!! Lucky I have a sense of humor to keep me sane!

 

 

 

For the fourth time: Don't save your NHS to death, and you too wont experience hospital-system overload.

 

What on Earth do you mean by "don't save your NHS to death"? 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 11:27 PM.

[Hip]

We're delving too deep into politics here, but let me assure you that each side thinks they have a monopoly on the truth, most definitely including scientific truth.  "The other side is less intellectual than my side" is something you think because we all like to think we're superior to our fellow man. It's a very self congratulatory mindset.

 

I'll remind you that Italy and France have left of center governments and each achieved nearly identical results to the UK and the US.

 

I am not taking sides politically, as I tend to see all reasonable political parties as contributing something useful to running a country, each in their own style. 

 

But it's always been the case that the right tend to be pro-business pragmatists, whereas the left tend to be pro-society ideologists. Ideologists by nature are more bookishly intellectual. 

[Hip]

Doctors want to treat these patients, and the patients want treatment, but Fauci says NO!  No outpatient treatment = overcrowded hospitals.  No great mystery about this.  

 

Doctors are also businessmen in the US, and US hospitals are businesses, so their claims that certain drugs help have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Right from the beginning, US hospitals were advertising the various unproven coronavirus treatments they could offer, because that is good for business. 

 

You get a different perspective about unproven speculative coronavirus drugs from European socialized medicine systems, as here the doctors and hospitals are not businesses, but are paid for by the state. When you get solid evidence that a drug helps, then socialized medicine hospitals may use it. But without evidence, they will see giving unproven coronavirus treatments as a waste of taxpayer resources. 

 

Which approach is better? Hard to say. Certainly if there were a drug which might help, there would be a faster take up of that drug in the US. But you may also be given a lot of duds which don't help. 

Edited by Hip, 10 February 2021 - 11:37 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

https://c19study.com/

 

See Attached: hsummary.png

Attached Files

•  hsummary.png   268.56KB   0 downloads