New coronavirus in/from China

[Little John]

Meanwhile, if folks could just possibly manage to hold off, just for a second, on the supercilious, but essentially vacuous sneering and usual implication of anyone not following the line being either stupid or immoral, they might want to address the the following points:

This virus cannot and never could be stopped once it fully got out into the world. The only exit is and always was herd immunity and the only way to achieve herd immunity is via a vaccine or via infection and recovery. That is a not a "right wing" or "left wing" statement. It's not nice or nasty. It is just a statement of fact based on the biology.

Being a member of the Corona family of viruses, Covid-19 is going to be massively difficult to produce a vaccine that works for whatever strain is abroad when it is rolled out due to its high mutation rate (the common cold also belongs to a family of virus with high mutation rates). Meanwhile, in the time it would take to produce a vaccine, our economy here in the UK would be utterly wrecked, leading to hunger and other economic privatizations of a level that no one alive has any experience of.

A terrible mistake has been made and many more people may now die as a consequence.

If the UK economy is wrecked on the back of lock-down, it is not like the collapse of something like the Russian economy at the end of the Soviet era. They could, at least, still feed themselves. This country is massively overpopulated (due to the insane immigration policies of successive governments of whatever political stripe since the end of the Second World War) and has to import over 50% of it's food. If our economy is reduced to a smoldering ruin, especially in the context of a world economy that is already on it's arse and where there will be little scope or appetite for international charity, we go hungry, it is that simple. Again, I say as someone who would describe himself as on the Left, this is nothing to do with "left" or "right". It is below that. It is to about biology and physics and they do not negotiate based on one's political preferences.

In a nutshell, the only solution out of this that keeps the CFR as low as possible from the virus itself whilst simultaneously leaving something vaguely resembling a functioning economy is a controlled infection of the under 60s with no comorbidities.

In other words, the current strategy(s) of a total lock-down till a vaccine arrives or a total lock down as a series of pulsed releases are unrealistic at best and economically catastrophic with all of the attendant health issues at worst.

Yes, pulsed release is certainly less awful than letting it rip due to our medical systems being less likely to be overloaded. But, that is predicated on three entirely unmanageable/unrealistic assumtions:

(a) those pulsed releases being adequately micro managed for at least a year and a half

(b) our economies remaining sufficiently intact to have the resources to enact those pulsed releases for as long as it takes

(c) the mass of the population being psychologically prepared and economically capable of withstanding the psychological and economic privations that such pulsed releases inevitably include.

Additionally, as I've alluded to above, at the end of such a pulsed release strategy, here in the UK at least, the damage done to the economy would be so total and so catastrophic there is the little matter of how, precisely, we would continue to be able to afford to import the more than 50% of food we need to feed ourselves. Not to mention the myriad of other industrial resources we need, not least energy itself.

In other words, I am suggesting that the economic fallout from such a strategy may well lead to a shortening of lives, over the longer term, that dwarfs the lengthening of lives achieved with a pulsed lock down. I am suggesting this because the evidence is already both voluminous and overwhelming about the effect of such economic privations on life expectancy.

A controlled infection (that is to say, an "attenuated" infection, for the sake of clarity and for the particular attention of Ken Neal who seems to be having some difficulty in understanding the concept) of all those under 60 with no comorbidities, however, could be achieved in less than two months, would still be very unlikely to overwhelm our medical systems and would allow those with comorbidities and the elderly to come out of lock-down at the end of two months due to having the protection provided by the rest of the under 60 population via their herd immunity. Critically, this would mean our economies would not be wrecked. Or, at least, not as wrecked as they are going to be with any other strategy.

It is especially urgent to do this now with this first wave where we already know how lethal this current strain of the virus is and which groups are most vulnerable. In any second wave, like as in 1918, any new mutant strain could be far more lethal to a far larger age range. So, we should encourage infection of those strong enough to recover now with this potentially less lethal strain.

And before anyone reading this gets the vapours and clutches their pearls in horror at the seeming brutality of the above, read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu...

"...The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was indeed much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. By August, when the second wave began in France, Sierra Leone, and the United States, the virus had mutated to a much more deadly form. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic.

This increased severity has been attributed to the circumstances of the First World War. In civilian life, natural selection favors a mild strain. Those who get very ill stay home, and those mildly ill continue with their lives, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. The second wave began, and the flu quickly spread around the world again. Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials pay attention when the virus reaches places with social upheaval (looking for deadlier strains of the virus).

The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu. This was most dramatically illustrated in Copenhagen, which escaped with a combined mortality rate of just 0.29% (0.02% in the first wave and 0.27% in the second wave) because of exposure to the less-lethal first wave.[106] For the rest of the population, the second wave was far more deadly; the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit...".

It's time for a lot of people to stop being emotionally and morally incontinent and start thinking and acting like adults.

Sometimes, morality is not about doing what is "right". It is about doing what is least wrong. There are no good outcomes to this. Only awful ones. But, there are definitely some that are more awful than others over the longer term.

[Little John]

Or are we just going to get more mindless parroting of:

"stay safe"
"protect the NHS"
"save lives"
"clap like a monkey"


and anyone who does not do the above is a "bad person"...

....obviously

[Mark]

This virus cannot and never could be stopped once it fully got out into the world. The only exit is and always was herd immunity and the only way to achieve herd immunity is via a vaccine or via infection and recovery. That is a not a "right wing" or "left wing" statement. It's not nice or nasty. It is just a statement of fact based on the biology.

Not true, there's also a lot of work going on to develop treatments.

Here’s Exactly Where We Are with Vaccines and Treatments for COVID-19:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... #Treatment

[Mark]

Being a member of the Corona family of viruses, Covid-19 is going to be massively difficult to produce a vaccine that works for whatever strain is abroad when it is rolled out due to its high mutation rate (the common cold also belongs to a family of virus with high mutation rates). Meanwhile, in the time it would take to produce a vaccine, our economy here in the UK would be utterly wrecked, leading to hunger and other economic privatizations of a level that no one alive has any experience of.

Not true - the mutations likely won’t interfere with the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine.

COVID-19 Will Mutate — What That Means for a Vaccine:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... d-covid-19

[Little John]

This virus cannot and never could be stopped once it fully got out into the world. The only exit is and always was herd immunity and the only way to achieve herd immunity is via a vaccine or via infection and recovery. That is a not a "right wing" or "left wing" statement. It's not nice or nasty. It is just a statement of fact based on the biology.

Not true, there's also a lot of work going on to develop treatments.

Here’s Exactly Where We Are with Vaccines and Treatments for COVID-19:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... #Treatment

You don't actually read the things you link to do you

Antivirals

Remdesivir

Developed a decade ago, this drug failed in clinical trials against Ebola in 2014. But it was found to be generally safe in people. Research with MERS showed that the drug blocked the virus from replicating.

In April, it was being tested in five COVID-19 clinical trials. The first results weren’t encouraging. In mid-April, the Department of Veterans Affairs reported that the drug produced no noticeable benefits in patients at veterans’ hospitals. They also noted that the death rate among this group was higher than among patients who were given standard medical care.

In late April, Gilead Sciences announced one of its trials had been “terminated� due to low enrollment. Gilead officials said the results of that trial had been “inconclusive� when it was ended.

A few days later, they company announced that another trial of remdesivir overseen by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases had “met its primary endpoint.�

Dr. Anthony FauciTrusted Source, the institute’s director, told reporters the trial produced a “clear cut positive effect in diminishing time to recover.� He said people taking the drug recovered from COVID-19 in 11 days compared to 15 days to people who didn’t take remdesivir. More details will be released after the trial is peer reviewed and published.

At the same time, another studyTrusted Source published in The Lancet, reported that participants in a clinical trial who took remdesivir showed no benefits compared to people who took a placebo.

Despite the conflicting results, the FDA issued an orderTrusted Source on May 1 for the emergency use of remdesivir.

Kaletra

This is a combination of two drugs that work against HIV. Clinical trials are planned to see whether it works against SARS-CoV-2.

Favipiravir

This drug is approved in some countries outside the United States to treat influenza. Some reports from China suggest it may work as a treatment for COVID-19. These results, though, haven’t been published yet.

Arbidol

This antiviral was tested along with the drug lopinavir/ritonavir as a treatment for COVID-19. Researchers reported in mid-April that the two drugs didn’t improve the clinical outcomes for people hospitalized with mild to moderate cases of COVID-19.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Meanwhile, if folks could just possibly manage to hold off, just for a second, on the supercilious, but essentially vacuous sneering and usual implication of anyone not following the line being either stupid or immoral.....

This place was once a peak oil hideaway Steve....where were you when this was how those of us who knew better were treated way back when?

[Little John]

Being a member of the Corona family of viruses, Covid-19 is going to be massively difficult to produce a vaccine that works for whatever strain is abroad when it is rolled out due to its high mutation rate (the common cold also belongs to a family of virus with high mutation rates). Meanwhile, in the time it would take to produce a vaccine, our economy here in the UK would be utterly wrecked, leading to hunger and other economic privatizations of a level that no one alive has any experience of.

Not true - the mutations likely won’t interfere with the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine.

COVID-19 Will Mutate — What That Means for a Vaccine:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... d-covid-19

So, if a low mutation rate (which is the central argument in this article in support of a vaccine) means a vaccine with be effective, a low mutation rate means herd immunity resulting from infection and recovery to an initial strain will also be effective doesn't it.

Or, does a "lack of herd immunity" only apply when we are talking about natural infection and immune responses?

[Mark]

This virus cannot and never could be stopped once it fully got out into the world. The only exit is and always was herd immunity and the only way to achieve herd immunity is via a vaccine or via infection and recovery. That is a not a "right wing" or "left wing" statement. It's not nice or nasty. It is just a statement of fact based on the biology.

Not true, there's also a lot of work going on to develop treatments.

Here’s Exactly Where We Are with Vaccines and Treatments for COVID-19:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... #Treatment

You don't actually read the things you link to do you

No...., you didn't read what I typed, which was that there's a lot of work going on to develop treatments, which there is.
Granted, some of the initial findings don't look too hopeful, but it's very early doors...

You typed that the only exit is and always was herd immunity.
That fits your narrative, as you only see the world in black & white, when it's actually a glorious technicolour of different views and opinion.....

[Vortex2]

it's actually a glorious technicolour of different views and opinion.....

Excellent!

[Bedrock Barney]

Well, our mid to late 70's neighbours (both sides) are going out and about for walks and shopping. They are relatively fit and of sound mind. They are not wearing masks. Good for them I say. They have assessed the risk and I imagine have decided that if their time has come, then so be it. They do not want to live like hamsters in a cage.

Fine ... but it's a 2-sided deal.

If they are ... or become ... infected then without masks they will spread it.

They either haven't been informed of how all this works - or they are selfish.

My neighbours are intelligent people but perhaps the more informed and less selfish out there can all wear masks whilst they don't and then everything will be fine.

I won't be wearing a mask either unless it is mandated in law. I live in a democracy after all.

[Little John]

https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/05/01/ ... wn-policy/

As Europe and North America continue suffering their steady economic and social decline as a direct result of imposing ‘lockdown’ on their populations, other countries have taken a different approach to dealing with the coronavirus threat. You wouldn’t know it by listening to western politicians or mainstream media stenographers, there are also nonlockdown countries. They are led by Sweden, Iceland, Belarus, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Surprisingly to some, their results have been as good or better than the lockdown countries, but without having to endure the socio-economic chaos we are now witnessing across the world. For this reason alone, Sweden and others like them, have already won the policy debate, as well as the scientific one too.

Unlike much of the rest of the world who saw fit to unquestioningly follow China’s lead on everything from quarantining, to economic shutdowns, to contact tracing, and PCR mass testing, nonlockdown countries have instead opted for a somewhat lighter touch – preserving their economies and societies, and in doing so avoiding an endless daisy chain of new problems and obstacles deriving directly from the imposition of brutal lockdown policy.

On the European front, the Scandinavian country of Sweden is now garnering more attention than before, and has become an object of both criticism and fascination for those against or in favor of lockdown policy. While countries like the United States and Great Britain continue to top the global tables in terms of COVID-19 death tolls, Sweden has only suffered marginal casualties in comparison, while avoiding the intense strain on society and loss in public confidence which lockdown governments are now grappling with as they continue to push their populations to the limits of social stress and economic tolerance. You could say those governments are already careening over the edge by looking at the latest jobless figures coming out the US with 30 million new people filing for unemployment in the last few weeks.

Unlike many others, Sweden has not enforced any strict mass quarantine measures to contain COVID-19, nor has it closed any of its borders. Rather, Swedish health authorities have issued a series of guidelines for social distancing and other common sense measures covering areas like hygiene, travel, public gatherings, and protecting the elderly and immune compromised. They have kept all preschools, primary and secondary schools open, while closing college and universities who are now doing their work and lectures online. Likewise, many bars and restaurants have remained open, and shoppers do not have to perform the bizarre ritual of queuing around the block standing 2 meters apart in order to buy groceries.

According to the country’s top scientists, they are now well underway to achieving natural herd immunity. It seems this particular Nordic model has already won the debate.

Because Sweden decided to follow real epidemiological science and pursue a common sense strategy of herd immunity, it doesn’t need to “flatten of the curve� because its strategic approach has the added benefit of achieving a much more gradual and wider spread.

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s government advisor for epidemiology explains, “We are all trying to keep the spread of this disease as low as possible, mainly to prevent our healthcare system from being overstretched, but we have not gone for the complete lockdown. We have managed to keep the number of cases low enough so the intensive care units have kept working and there has always been 20 per cent beds empty and enough protective equipment, even in Stockholm, where there has been a huge stress on healthcare. So in that way the strategy has worked.�

Similarly, it doesn’t have the deal with the newest ‘crisis’ obstacle which lockdown states seem to be using as an excuse not to reopen society and the economy, which the fear of a ‘second peak‘ which governments are telling the public will wreak havoc on the nation by “infecting the vulnerable� and will “overwhelm the health services� if everything is suddenly reopened and social isolation and distancing is relaxed.

This catch 22 which countries like the US and UK are caught in is predicated on the belief that the coronavirus might suddenly unleash itself again on the populace. Certainly, there could be a second surge, but it should be noted that this is also a direct result of the decision to impose lockdown in the first place. According to top epidemiologist Dr Knut Wikkowski, the decision to lockdown only delayed the inevitable for countries like the US and UK, and quite possibly made the COVID-19 problem even worse than it would have previously been in the short to midterm, but in the long-term the results would be relatively the same proportionally in term of human casualties.

The penny should have really dropped after it was revealed two weeks ago by Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director for Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that the peak of the UK’s coronavirus ‘crisis’ actually came a full week before Boris Johnson initiated lockdown on March 23rd.

In fact, if you plug in Sweden’s actual data into Neil Ferguson’s own infamous computer model which sent the UK government into mass-panic mode, here’s what you would get:



The numbers don’t lie, but statistics can be made to tell any story the narrator wants, especially when the storyteller is government. Just look at the last 50 years of announcements regarding unemployment and inflation levels. One thing we should have learned by now is that government will never let things like facts and real science get in the way of a slow motion train wreck in progress, hence you can see some UK officials still clinging to Ferguson’s initial prediction as some sort of ‘proof’ that the lockdown was necessary to avoid ‘mass death.’

Outside of popular supposition and media talking points, there is no scientific study which shows that lockdown saved any significant number of lives. Instead, new data strongly suggests quite the opposite.

The Ribbing of Sweden

As western lockdown countries drift further and further into an economic and social purgatory, nonlockdown countries like Sweden seem to be the target of bad-natured criticism by western media punditry. This seems to be out spite more than anything, as some journalists are sensing defeat after they had thrown their lot in with draconian lockdown policy early on, unquestioningly backing their governments’ one-size-fits-all approach to emergency management, once again invoking the TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle which history shows often precedes most man-made calamities from World War I, the Iraq War in 2003, to the 2008 Wall Street Bail Out.

Nonetheless, the media and political pressure has been almost relentless on Sweden for not complying with the west’s ‘lockdown consensus.’

The country has also been roundly criticized by some 2,300 academics who piled on scorn upon it in a letter posted in March demanding the government change course and immediately head for lockdown.

However, the country has held off, and has since won endorsements from a number of eminent academics and professionals, like Professor Heneghan who hailed Sweden for “holding its nerve,� in the face of such public condemnation. That steadfastness seems to finally be paying dividends now, as some western mainstream media outlets, and even the UN itself, are acknowledging their comparable success. The New York Post begrudgingly acknowledged that Sweden received praise from the high chair of global public health at the World Health Organization (WHO), now lauded it as a “model� for overcoming the coronavirus crisis.

Dr. Micheal Ryan, WHO head of emergency management said, “What it has done differently is it has very much relied on its relationship with its citizenry and the ability and willingness of its citizens to implement self-distancing and self-regulate.�

He added, “In that sense, they have implemented public policy through that partnership with the population …. I think if we are to reach a new normal, Sweden represents a model if we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns.�

So according to WHO, it is Sweden which could be the new normal – and not the reactionary medieval quarantine policies favored by other states. Is WHO really making an argument against obsessive social isolation, and collective economic suicide? Such words from WHO should, in theory, be reassuring to those stuck in their lockdown death spirals. But many in the west are still convinced of the TINA principle, even if their next door neighbor has chosen a short and more practical route through the eye of the storm.

More than anything, this conundrum speaks to the relationship between people and their governments. Indeed, it is the social contract between government and its citizens which forms the core of the country’s policy formation. The idea that the choice of lockdown policy is a straight trade-off between lives and economy is a false dichotomy which ignores many concomitant variables and factors which are at play.

“I don’t think it was in terms of economy versus a health of people. I think it was a broader concern about the social fabric in general,� said Lars Trägårdh, professor of history and civil society studies at Ersta Sköndal University College.

“It is wonderful that we have retained the amount of freedoms that we have here ….Who would have thought, you know, that Swedish social democracy would be in bed with American right-wing libertarians? Not me,� remarked Trägårdh.

Professor Cecilia Soderberg-Naucler from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute explained why the state was duty-bound to take the direction it did. “We must establish control over the situation, we cannot head into a situation where we get complete chaos. No one has tried this route, so why should we test it first in Sweden, without informed consent?� said Soderberg-Naucler.

This concept of people talking responsibility for their actions and for public well-being is actually enshrined in Sweden’s constitution. This means that the state does not have to threaten and abuse its citizens for things like not observing social distancing and buying ‘non essential items’ when out shopping, or meeting in small groups – as some governments are doing. Swedes know the risks and observe government guidelines accordingly. They also acknowledge that humans are not perfect and won’t use police and courts to punish citizens if they are not following guidelines to the letter – as is the case in many lockdown countries. In lockdown countries, the bad blood between the public and government will not evaporate after the ‘crisis’ is over, which is a real problem which lockdown governments will continue facing in the future.

Still, New York Post had to include the caveat that Sweden was something of a pariah state for “controversially refused restrictions“. The propaganda war could be seen in the paper’s subtle wordsmithing, where editors even went so far as to change their headline from “WHO lauds Sweden as ‘model’ in coronavirus fight for resisting lockdown,� to a slightly more incendiary “WHO lauds lockdown-ignoring Sweden as a ‘model’ for countries going forward�

Swedish critics are quick to point out how poorly it’s doing compared to its Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark, Norway and Finland. They do this by pointing to the new global bible of public policy – the World-o-Meter coronavirus running totals – which for some people is now the end all and be all which it comes to declaring how really, really bad things are, and will continue to be (because that meter just keeps on running).

As of today, Sweden, which has a population of roughly 10.5 million, has recorded 21,092 cases and 2,586 fatalities from COVID-19, that’s roughly 256 deaths per million people.

By contrast, its southern neighbor Denmark which has a population of 5.8 million has recorded 9,1058 cases and 452 fatalities, roughly 78 deaths per million persons. Norway is similar population at 5.4 million, and has recorded 7,738 cases and 210 deaths, that’s 39 deaths per million. Finland has a population of 5.5 million confirmed just 4,995 cases and 211 deaths, with 38 deaths per million.

Critics of Sweden have all seized upon these differences in order to condemn their government for being ‘irresponsible’ and “playing Russian roulette� with their citizens’ lives. If one didn’t know better from all the hysterical rhetoric, you’d think there was an impending genocide happening there. While these sort of polemic arguments seem to work in the narrow band of reality that are social media threads, the reality is that after scaling up its neighbors’ results to be in line with Sweden’s larger population which is roughly twice their size, the difference is statistically insignificant for a country of 10.5 million. They are basically arguing that when comparing Sweden to its neighbor Denmark, that a proportional difference of approximately 1,500 fatalities warrants Sweden closing all its schools and shutting down its entire economy and suffer all the chaos ill effects that goes with that course of action.

To put things in even more perspective, while Sweden has already suffered 2,586 COVID deaths in 2020, back in 2018 there were approximately 6,997 total respiratory disease deaths in Sweden – and the country’s healthcare capacity was not overrun, nor were any of their public systems stretched to breaking point.

It’s a ridiculous argument on its face, and yet, this is the line of thinking which seems to permeate through lockdown countries desperate to justify their own fatal policy decision.

It’s not a discussion for faint hearts, but this has been a reality for nations since time immemorial who have faced war, plagues and pandemics. There is no perfect answer, but there are practical answers that take utilitarianism into account.

Fear of the ‘Second Wave’

In what can only be described as a macabre display of bad faith, exasperated naysayers from lockdown countries seem to almost eager to see Sweden fall victim to the dreaded “second wave� which many Britons and Americans insist is a fait accompli, as their political leaders and science ‘experts’ keep telling them. The threat of a ‘second wave’ is certainly being used by some governments to justify an increasingly unpopular lockdown policy, but also lends itself to the preferences of Bill Gates who has been publicly advocating an open-ended lockdown arrangement until such a time that salvation will arrive in the form of a vaccine for the coronavirus. But even the most optimistic scenario would be somewhere between 18 months and two years, which begs the question of whether democracies and their economies can survive such an extended period of tumult. That’s a scenario which no one can realistically endorse, and yet it’s given prime time by mainstream media outlets who have been keen of offer-up the Gates plan as another TINA solution to the ‘pandemic’. Besides the obvious civilizational problems with the Gates global lock-up plan, it chronically ignores the fact that there are nonlockdown countries like Sweden who never opted into the west’s collective self-destruction pact.

Not everyone is on board with the inevitability of a “second wave� which the American and British government keeps insisting is coming if lockdown is lifted too early. Renowned Scottish microbiologist Professor Hugh Pennington is not convinced, saying that such a second peak is unlikely. “No, I’m not sure where this ‘second peak’ idea comes from,� says Pennington.

Still, Prof. Pennington seemed miffed as to where Boris Johnson’s government is getting its science from. “I know where it comes from, it comes from flu. Because when we have a flu pandemic we always get a second peak, and sometimes we get a third peak …. Now, why we should get one with this virus, I don’t quite understand …. It just seems to be a phenomenon with flu, and I don’t see any reason myself, and I haven’t seen any evidence to support the idea that there would be a second peak of the virus.�

According to other experts, one of the fundamental problem with lockdown policy favored by the US, UK other European countries, is that it was never evidence-based, or “guided by the science.� Quite the opposite in fact. Rather, it was a political decision, undertaken by politicians. Never in history has a country enacted such a universal measure which quarantines the healthy as well as the sick and infirmed. This also flies in the face of hundreds of years of epidemiological science and epidemic policy, and eschews the entire concept of natural herd immunity.

Again, the pragmatic approach would have been to protect those most directly effected by COVID-19 which is overwhelmingly the elderly and those in palliative care – a policy which would eventually bring a population herd immunity as a natural by-product of that policy. That’s been the approach taken by Sweden and other states, and according to numerous experts in the field, it makes sense on both an epidemiological level and well as a social and economic level.

On this issue, leading Swedish epidemiologist, Dr. Johan Gieseck, believes that implementing a strict general lockdown and social distancing cannot eliminate any significant amount of viral infections and deaths, rather such a policy may only delay a certain amount of infections and deaths. Rather than flattening the curve, lockdown only moves the curve forward, but may also risk an actual second wave of infections which would have otherwise passed through the population in its path towards natural herd immunity. However, regardless of which policy you choose, any initial ‘flattening of the curve’ comes with the most vulnerable dying first as much as any appearance mitigation in statistics concurrent with a strict lockdown and social distancing policy.

In a recent interview with Radio 5, Sweden’s Dr. Gieseck, remarked how the UK had initially proposed the same plan as Sweden, but then Boris Johnson came under intense pressure from the media and opposition after the arrival of Imperial College’s notorious “500,000 dead� paper presented to the government by Prof. Neil Ferguson. As a result, UK officials quickly changed course in a “180 degree U-turn,� said Gieseck, who was shocked how an unpublished paper relying on over-exaggerated computer models and with no peer review could have played such a crucial role in altering such an important and sweeping policy decision. How did that happen? One only has to look at the obvious nexus of funding between the UK government, Imperial College and the Gates Foundation to get a possible answer to that question.

The real question in all of this should be: who and what is driving western governments’ disastrous lockdown policy? After reviewing the evidence, we can rule out one possibility: it’s certainly not the science.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.omfif.org/2020/05/welcome-t ... agflation/

Heading for 1970s-style cost-push inflation

What we used to call the advanced world economies face a fateful combination of possible pandemic outcomes: depression, then (possibly) boom, with either inflation or deflation. My view is that, out of the different scenarios, we are heading for stagflation.

In a trend-bent future, debt-trapped demand inhibits output recovery. Zombie companies, denied sufficient monetary life-support, will expire. Some otherwise viable companies will not recover. Productivity will rebound and unemployment ramp up. After the 2008 financial crisis, the world experienced low productivity and low unemployment. This time round, that combination will be reversed.

Many low-to-middle income ‘just about managing’ working households will need partial or full state support. Easy cheap credit will not rescue the debt-trapped, including the state. Inflation is the solution to debt, with nominal income growing while real income stagnates.

The pandemic is unprecedented since the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak. It is a trend-bender – like two world wars, the 1929 Wall Street crash, and the breakdown of Bretton Woods. We can no longer presume we are going smoothly to where we have been. We need to go back to economic theory to discern the post-Covid world.

[continues]

I agree with this article. Governments now need inflation.

[stumuz1]

I won't be wearing a mask either unless it is mandated in law. I live in a democracy after all.

Quite. But in a civilised democratic society people are allowed to defend themselves against others who would do them harm . It was one of the jurisprudential reasons that smoking was banned in public places.

Would you accept being pushed away with force if you inadvertently came within 2 metres of someone?

[boisdevie]

I won't be wearing a mask either unless it is mandated in law. I live in a democracy after all.

Quite. But in a civilised democratic society people are allowed to defend themselves against others who would do them harm . It was one of the jurisprudential reasons that smoking was banned in public places.

Would you accept being pushed away with force if you inadvertently came within 2 metres of someone?

You are making an assumption that someone coming within 2 metres of someone would 'do them harm' - let's see some evidence to support your contention. Let's start with you defining 'do them harm'.

[Bedrock Barney]

I won't be wearing a mask either unless it is mandated in law. I live in a democracy after all.

Quite. But in a civilised democratic society people are allowed to defend themselves against others who would do them harm . It was one of the jurisprudential reasons that smoking was banned in public places.

Would you accept being pushed away with force if you inadvertently came within 2 metres of someone?

I don't know. Depends on the circumstances. What I do know is that the 2m rule is not being consistently observed. For example, someone out for a run passing close by on a footpath, someone going backwards in a one way aisle in a supermarket, people queuing poorly. It's happening all the time. We are shopping most of the time in our local small M&S (for convenience). Plenty of elderly people in there, hardly anyone wearing masks, completely random in terms of social distancing.