I’ve been doing much and varied research from pandemics to papers to polemics to priestesses…
It’s not that I wish to play down those who are suffering from Covid-19 or worried about loved ones, but some numbers suggest a different perspective:
As of 17th March, according to an unsourced graphic in the Daily Mail, there were about 1500 cases in the UK and 54 deaths. There are 67m of us.
I don’t know if I can trust those stats (I usually don’t trust that paper), but if so, less than 0.000025 have been infected, and my calculator doesn’t know how to show how tiny the 0.067 of those dead out of those infected is in the overall population. It’s less than a millionth. In my region, 1 in c5m has died – one 5th of a millionth.
What are the overall deaths in that period, and of what? How significant are these covid deaths?
I see that the numbers have risen quickly, but then the chart is designed to show that and there’s been a sudden awareness (heightened by the media and then the closures and then testing).
On Tues 25th, the Guardian showed 8000 cases in UK – that’s still 0.0047, although it’s grown again… and now there’s figures of what the projected deaths would be if we didn’t all stay in…
I also read from multiple sources that last year’s flu season saw 26,000 deaths in this country.
I wonder if coronavirus is the only condition that sufferers have – often it’s cited that those that contract it and die have other health issues.
Countries want to seem powerful by taking action and showing that they’ve implemented a solution and to have low stats – not to be the place infamous for infection.
I wonder if high figures are used to justify harsh means.
I am wondering about the difference between testing positive and contracting the illness in a serious way, and the veracity of the claim that low to no symptom carriers do meaningfully infect others. By meaningfully, I mean that they exhibit unpleasant to dangerous symptoms.
There is a difference between infection and contagion. Is infection truly proven, or circumstantial? Is infection in fact by the power of association – such as we’re seeing through fear? I’ve been looking into why the germ has such power in our medical model, and into the work of Antoine Bechamp, Louis Pasteur’s rival, whose work was largely passed over for a more lucrative model.
Is the positive test indicative of something else than dangerous infection? Why can some people carry the illness and not show any signs?
I heard – from an unspecified personal source – that in one European country which now has police-enforced lockdown, a group of four young people breaking the curfew were picked up and all tested positive. The message: renegrades are dangerous: they are our enemies. (And ‘Stay in, or else’ as one British headline put it). But I read: this is spin. Why were they picked up rather than sent home? (And wasn’t being in a police car causing possible infection to all?) Did they have to be tested – isn’t that intrusive? And there’s a backlash against younger people. “This is the ultimate test for selfish millennials” a British newspaper that I deplore headlined an article. Younger generations might question more, rather than being selfish. I wonder what the demographic of that paper’s readership is, and if it’s boomers, then that’s the last bastion of wartime compliance…. I shall come back to this topic sometime.
That group of young men needed to be shown to be not just nonconformists – if they were safe to be out, so might the rest of us be, and the measures thus shown to be unnecessary. They had to be shown to be dangerous. All four of them tested positive?! So I’m suspicious about this story, and certainly its use in the PR campaign.
Should it be up to the government, or WHO, to impose nationwide policies and restrictions?
Isn’t this a time to involve natural health if allopathic medicine is so overstretched? I read it was used in China, very effectively.
It seems that many are voluntarily observing advice, such as self isolation, social distancing, and better sanitation, and many public places had closed before they were made to. I am very concerned when armies and police get involved, because their presence against their own people – and their training and mindset – is undemocratic.
It’s not a democracy, it’s a tyranny.
I note that the countries who’ve taken a controlling approach to lockdowns include those that have (had) dictators or been under occupation. Denmark has passed a law regarding mandatory vaccination – and it also is proud to have eradicated ‘Down’s syndrome’ babies – which is an ugly and forceful stance on ‘health’ that correlates. (‘Down’s syndrome’ people are beautiful souls of pure love, which we need more of).
The time I was proudest of those countries was when they stood against Hitler. Their leadership and armies wouldn’t comply. Ten years ago, the Greek police wouldn’t over plans for forced vaccination.
There are parallels with that time and now, and the courageous work of medical journalist Jane Burgermeister.
It’s disturbing when resources can be found to control your own in the name of public safety.
Many of us can see that this could be martial law coming in through a back door, and we wonder if it wasn’t deliberately left open. We fear each other, even loved ones, and this makes it hard to reach out and show love, especially if the net is being censored. Solidarity is built when we reach out to strangers, not when we’re afraid to touch them. We recognise too that our ministers, our police and army, as well as health care workers are all people too and that they are part of us.
Seeing each other as ‘other’ is exactly how we are able to commit abuses, even atrocities.
Seeing each other as fellows to connect and protect makes us handle events very differently.
Controlling measures shows for fearful leadership.
If countries or cities want to impress others with their leadership, they should be aware that totalitarianism doesn’t. We remember harsh regimes with a shudder. These are not times to emulate or leaders to be proud of. Their effects continued long after, and the memory remains permanently, as do the actions of individuals – such as those officers who dragged a couple from their home in China and left a disabled child to die.
Mussolini, Hitler, Henry VIII, Edward I, Bloody Mary, Franco, Hoxha, Ceausescu… we’ve heard of these and have a nifty negative opinion, even if it’s not very informed. S/he was the one that…
It’s these kinds of systems that will no longer work. Whether the virus is intentional or just has the potential to be used for control, I believe it actually can be the catalyst to break out of unjust, self-orientated institutions into better ways. I’ll have more to say on that over Easter….
So I’m not belittling the virus or the difficult job of how to deal with it, nor am I advocating breaking your country’s curfews (I neither condone nor condemn) and saying not to care about others and that the disease can’t be spread by contact; but I am questioning assumptions and models, thinking ahead on what might happen, how this situation could be misused, and I’m not assuming that there’s only one way to handle it. I will be discussing that too into my Easter message, which will appear here on Easter Sunday. There’ll be other messages during this coming Holy Week and a link to my Good Friday sundown service with my own music.