How long until this Pandemic ceases?

[Silvanus]

Is it real? Is there power behind it? If so, why is it happening? Might make it an interesting thread on its own.

I hadn't heard of it until your post prompted me to google it. It seems to be a term to describe the impact of stuff like "smart" technology on industry.

I started that video out of sheer curiosity, but only got 3 1/2 minutes in before it veered into batshit territory. Gorfias, you seriously need to stop getting your information from unverifiable hacks on Youtube.

 

[Agema]

Even when the pandemic is "resolved" by a vaccine, the top 1% have gained so much power terrorizing us regarding the flu. They may never give it up as it fits into a larger, terrifying agenda. Example of why I think as I do...

The 1% could probably most effectively be weakened by a concerted campaign to remove the stupendous bankrolling they do of US politics: election campaigns and lobbying. It is worth noting that "Drain the swamp" Donald Trump made precisely zero progress or even substantial rhetoric on this. He just banged on about Mexicans and manufacturing jobs, whilst the real underlying power structures rolled merrily along as ever.

If you really want to fight big money and the 1%, you need 250 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes in the House and another 50+ of them in the Senate. There's no-one else I can see even trying. People like Rand Paul popped up years ago, fired some potshots at lobbying and corporate cronyism, and then backed off with nebulous plans for voluntary (lol!) codes, as if all these profit- and power-hungry individuals and companies would just agree to do so out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[gorfias]

I hadn't heard of it until your post prompted me to google it. It seems to be a term to describe the impact of stuff like "smart" technology on industry.

I started that video out of sheer curiosity, but only got 3 1/2 minutes in before it veered into batshit territory. Gorfias, you seriously need to stop getting your information from unverifiable hacks on Youtube.

I had not heard of this guy until that youtube video:

Klaus Schwab - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He's the real deal. With power and some supremely insane, mass murderously depraved ideas about turning the human populace into cowering, terrified serfs.

You don't get this kind of information from Fox, CNN, et al.

 

[Silvanus]

He's the real deal. With power and some supremely insane, mass murderously depraved ideas about turning the human populace into cowering, terrified serfs.

OK, but are you getting your information on what those depraved ideas are from that Youtube video? Because a bunch of that was just nonsensical ravings.

 

[Agema]

Klaus Schwab - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He's the real deal. With power and some supremely insane, mass murderously depraved ideas about turning the human populace into cowering, terrified serfs.

He doesn't really have any power at all. He just runs an organisation that has an annual shindig for the elites which occurs in plain sight.

That video is definitely insane though. The World Economic Forum invites a load of people to come along and talk about their ideas. One, just one, offers an opinion that the future might be that we rent everything and own nothing. And in the brains of cranks like that guy it becomes the WEF having an actual plan to do this and force it on democratic nations somehow.

Watching this stuff is bad for your mental health.

 

[Avnger]

You don't get this kind of information from Fox, CNN, et al.

Similarly you don't get information on the inevitable mole person uprising or how our lizard person leaders are facilitating it.

 

[gorfias]

OK, but are you getting your information on what those depraved ideas are from that Youtube video? Because a bunch of that was just nonsensical ravings.

The video shows that guy speaking. What he says is a problem, regardless of where you got the video, CNN or youtube.
Assume he has no impact on anything. Odd coincidence that what he appears to want matching what is actually happening to us.
Example: wearing masks appears to be a good idea for those with symptoms: keep them from coughing or sneezing on others. For the rest of us? They can do more harm than good. But, they are a living symbol of obedience and compliance. Kinda like the yellow star Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. I doubt this goes away after a vaccine becomes widely available.

 

[Exley97]

More vaccine hope!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/16/covid-moderna-vaccine/

In the meantime, be patient, be safe, be smart and WEAR A FUCKING MASK.

 

[Thaluikhain]

For the rest of us? They can do more harm than good.

No.

But, they are a living symbol of obedience and compliance. Kinda like the yellow star Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany.

No, rather more like having to wear a seatbelt in a car. That's a law the government has made, and I'm obeying and complying when I wear that, because it's obviously a bad idea not to. Are we being oppressed by being told to wear seatbelts?

Likewise, people (generally) aren't allowed to run around naked, because the government.society tells them they can't. You could make an argument that that's a form of oppression, I just wouldn't care. Arguing that masks are government control or whatever is space lizard style absurdity, but boring.

 

[Silvanus]

The video shows that guy speaking. What he says is a problem, regardless of where you got the video, CNN or youtube.
Assume he has no impact on anything. Odd coincidence that what he appears to want matching what is actually happening to us.

It's not a coincidence. He's describing trends as he sees them. He's a member of the WEF, so of course he's going to do that.

Example: wearing masks appears to be a good idea for those with symptoms: keep them from coughing or sneezing on others. For the rest of us? They can do more harm than good.

No, that's bollocks. For a very small minority of people-- those with severe unrelated respiratory restrictions, for instance-- they can (rarely) cause complications; but those people are exempt.

For the vast majority of uninfected or asymptomatic people, masks are still beneficial. They still reduce the risk. The primary vector of transmission for the coronavirus is water droplets, and those droplets can remain airborne; so if those droplets land on a mask, rather than directly onto your face, then the risk of infection is lower.

This is all well established science that's been proven time and time again, and has been widely recognised long before the pandemic.

But, they are a living symbol of obedience and compliance. Kinda like the yellow star Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. I doubt this goes away after a vaccine becomes widely available.

They're a "symbol" solely of one's willingness to adapt their own behaviour to protect those around them.

Think of it this way: if the shadowy cabal wanted to control us, why would they want us all to be wearing masks, making us harder to identify and harder to recognise on CCTV?

 

[gorfias]

No.



No, rather more like having to wear a seatbelt in a car. That's a law the government has made, and I'm obeying and complying when I wear that, because it's obviously a bad idea not to. Are we being oppressed by being told to wear seatbelts?

Likewise, people (generally) aren't allowed to run around naked, because the government.society tells them they can't. You could make an argument that that's a form of oppression, I just wouldn't care. Arguing that masks are government control or whatever is space lizard style absurdity, but boring.

It's not a coincidence. He's describing trends as he sees them. He's a member of the WEF, so of course he's going to do that.



No, that's bollocks. For a very small minority of people-- those with severe unrelated respiratory restrictions, for instance-- they can (rarely) cause complications; but those people are exempt.

For the vast majority of uninfected or asymptomatic people, masks are still beneficial. They still reduce the risk. The primary vector of transmission for the coronavirus is water droplets, and those droplets can remain airborne; so if those droplets land on a mask, rather than directly onto your face, then the risk of infection is lower.

This is all well established science that's been proven time and time again, and has been widely recognised long before the pandemic.



They're a "symbol" solely of one's willingness to adapt their own behaviour to protect those around them.

Think of it this way: if the shadowy cabal wanted to control us, why would they want us all to be wearing masks, making us harder to identify and harder to recognise on CCTV?

Can't agree. Example: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...s-pose-serious-risk-to-healthy-people-n392431

If they have to scrape the back of your skull to see if you have Covid, seems crazy to think a surgical mask will be helpful wearing en masse regularly when outdoors.
ITMT Covid, politically, has been a lie. The median age of death has been around 80. You do not destroy the lives, liberty, prosperity of younger people that have not had their opportunity to live their lives yet on behalf of people that have already lived their lives. They should be out there getting laid, falling in love, getting married and having kids and building the future of the modern world. I'm sure, hunkered down their basements, that is having an adverse impact.

 

[Agema]

Example: wearing masks appears to be a good idea for those with symptoms: keep them from coughing or sneezing on others. For the rest of us? They can do more harm than good.

Masks are beneficial for almost everyone: they're going to block a substantial amount of aerosol particles you might breathe in as well as a lot of what you breathe out. There are only some people with specific medical conditions who might have problems with a mask. Or to put it another way, why are all the hospital staff wearing them if they don't do any good?

But, they are a living symbol of obedience and compliance.

You mean like mandatory seatbelts and replacing the tungsten filament lightbulb?

 

[gorfias]

Masks are beneficial for almost everyone: they're going to block a substantial amount of aerosol particles you might breathe in as well as a lot of what you breathe out. There are only some people with specific medical conditions who might have problems with a mask. Or to put it another way, why are all the hospital staff wearing them if they don't do any good?



You mean like mandatory seatbelts and replacing the tungsten filament lightbulb?

CDC: 85% of Virus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’

A CDC study found that using cloth face coverings or masks is mostly ineffective in preventing the spread of coronavirus.

www.breitbart.com

This is not normal and should be stopped ASAP:

 

[Generals]

CDC: 85% of Virus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’

A CDC study found that using cloth face coverings or masks is mostly ineffective in preventing the spread of coronavirus.

www.breitbart.com

This is not normal and should be stopped ASAP:
View attachment 1574

Using the study to suggest wearing masks is wrong is as silly as saying 85% of people who were injured after a car accident wear a seatbelt "always" or "often" and conclude wearing seatbelts is wrong.
First it is well known masks do not guarantee you wouldn't get infected. And let's not forget that masks mainly prevent an individual spreading the desease to others. So if you wear it all the time but others don't you will still get ill.

And than we could also discuss the fact cloth masks don't protect as much as surgical ones, all the people wearing their masks below their nose, etc.

Conclusion: the study doesn't say what Breitbart thinks it does.

And what's wrong with the picture? The fact that people are packed together? I agree, large gatherings should be minimized

 

[gorfias]

Using the study to suggest wearing masks is wrong is as silly as saying 85% of people who were injured after a car accident wear a seatbelt "always" or "often" and conclude wearing seatbelts is wrong.
First it is well known masks do not guarantee you wouldn't get infected. And let's not forget that masks mainly prevent an individual spreading the desease to others. So if you wear it all the time but others don't you will still get ill.

And than we could also discuss the fact cloth masks don't protect as much as surgical ones, all the people wearing their masks below their nose, etc.

Conclusion: the study doesn't say what Breitbart thinks it does.

And what's wrong with the picture? The fact that people are packed together? I agree, large gatherings should be minimized

Good points about seat belts: people are still injured wearing them in car crashes. Gotta think on that some.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

But, they are a living symbol of obedience and compliance.

 

[Silvanus]

Can't agree. Example: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...s-pose-serious-risk-to-healthy-people-n392431

Firstly, Russell Blaylock is a known conspiracy theorist and a bit of a nutcase. Secondly, his field is neuroscience; he has no formal education in the field of epidemiology or any relevant discipline. Thirdly, his position is not held by the overwhelming majority of scientists and practitioners within the relevant fields. Fourthly, the article you've provided now starts with a correction stating that the danger he warned of is highly unlikely.

If they have to scrape the back of your skull to see if you have Covid, seems crazy to think a surgical mask will be helpful wearing en masse regularly when outdoors.

They don't need to scrape the back of your skull. Numerous tests exist which can detect the presence of the virus, or the presence of antibodies (for those who have had the virus in the past and have since recovered).

ITMT Covid, politically, has been a lie. The median age of death has been around 80. You do not destroy the lives, liberty, prosperity of younger people that have not had their opportunity to live their lives yet on behalf of people that have already lived their lives. They should be out there getting laid, falling in love, getting married and having kids and building the future of the modern world. I'm sure, hunkered down their basements, that is having an adverse impact.

This is a difference of priorities that you have with the scientists, politicians, and-- frankly-- with the majority of people. It is not a "lie" if you disagree with the approach being taken.

But most of the information you've provided in support of your position so far has been outright and categorically false. I think you're getting your information from unverified fringe sources like Youtube talking-heads, and not from anywhere authoritative or meaningful.

 

[CriticalGaming]

But most of the information you've provided in support of your position so far has been outright and categorically false. I think you're getting your information from unverified fringe sources like Youtube talking-heads, and not from anywhere authoritative or meaningful.

Out of curiosity where are you getting your information if the CDC is a "false" source?

Not trying to argue with you, just wondering how people pulling studies and number off the CDC can be labels as false or untrue.

 

[Agema]

Firstly, Russell Blaylock is a known conspiracy theorist and a bit of a nutcase. Secondly, his field is neuroscience;

Technically, his field is neurology. And I am sometimes staggered by how little neurologists can know about neuroscience.

Anyway, this means he probably has basic epidemiological training relevant to medicine (not much, done a long time ago), which will be one up on the average neuroscientist. I still don't think he merits much confidence though.

 

[Silvanus]

Out of curiosity where are you getting your information if the CDC is a "false" source?

Not trying to argue with you, just wondering how people pulling studies and number off the CDC can be labels as false or untrue.

The CDC link isn't really what I was referring to. I was referring to the Youtuber he linked a few posts back, who made several false claims; Russell Blaylock; and wherever he got the bit about scraping skulls from.

The CDC is fine. But it doesn't make the point Breitbart thinks it does, as Generals has outlined above. The study even includes a section in the 'Discussion' segment saying it's beneficial to wear masks.