Het Corona-virus heeft aan mij veel duidelijk gemaakt. Ik ben zeer verbaasd hoe slecht onze deskundigen handelden. Of zijn ze bewust een kant op gestuurd?
Ik ben verbaasd hoe kritiekloos de media met de stroom mee dreven. Was er dan helemaal niemand die zich zelf in de materie verdiepte?
Ik ben erg verbaasd hoe egoïstisch en kortzichtig veel mensen met een alternatieve kijk op Regering en Media - van wie je zou verwachten dat ze begrijpen hoe de vork in de steel zit - redeneren.
Bij mijn oude 'stek', het BlikopNOSjournaal, zijn 'ze' steeds van mening veranderd. Eerst bestond Corona niet. Het zou volledig bedacht zijn.
Daarna zouden er veel minder zieken zijn dan in de kranten te lezen valt.
(Denken ze dan dat 'iemand' 30.000 ziekenhuizen heeft omgekocht, wereldwijd? Ik vrees dat er helemaal niet gedacht wordt.)
En toen waren ze er plots van overtuigd dat het allemaal diende om ons onze vrijheden af te nemen en een chip met data te implanteren.
Heftig pleitten ze er voor dat er géén maatregelen zouden worden genomen, want kijk: in de Oekraïne en in Zweden zaten de café's vol en was er heel weinig corona.
Wat mij vooral tegen stond was dat de keren dat duidelijk werd hoe onze vrijheden worden ingeperkt en de surveillance al heel groot bleek te zijn, je die mensen nauwelijks hoorde. PRISM , het sleepnet waarin men al mijn oude mails en telefoongesprekken kan lezen ( in Tel Aviv, weaaar anders zou men met zulke zaken bezig zijn ) zijn ze al lang vergeten.
Vault7, het enorme programma waarmee de VS 'Russischer sporen' en 'Chinese sporen' en sporen van elk land dat ze maar zwart willen maken -- in elke computer ter wereld kunnne achterlaten, zodat ze iedereen kunnen beschuldigen van hacken en digitaal stelen, dat Vault7 zullen ze niet kennen, vermoed ik.
Maar die enige keer dat het internet ons zou kunnen helpen om weer wat eerder de straat op te gaan, om een vreselijke ziekte te beteugelen, die keer komen ze in grote opstand !
Àltijd kiezen ze feilloos de foute aanval. Of zouden ze ook hier worden gestuurd? Is de man die Jensen van tekst voorziet een AIVD-er? Het zou me niet eens verbazen.
Veel mensen die in het verleden heel goede informatie hebben verspreid, zijn nu totaal door de mand gevallen, voor mij.
Een van hen is James Corbett.
Ik was nooit een fan van zijn opgewonden stijl, de betweterigheid etc. Maar zijn info over WO1 en alles wat er aan vooraf ging vond ik heel informatief.
Nu kan hij alleen nog maar denken dat de totale Dictatuur morgen van kracht zal worden.
Hij speelt een rol in het blog van Moon of Alabama, waar je ziet dat Corbett en Off Guardian hun gezonde verstand verloren hebben, en MoA god zij dank nog wel begrijpt hoe de vork in de steel zit.
Ik heb het op BlikopNOSjournaal vele malen uitgelegd: Wij geven de Overheid het recht op gebruik van dwang en geweld, omdat we op die manier niet hoeven te lijden onder 'het recht van de sterkste'.
En daarbij hoort dat de regering van onze jonge mannen mag eisen dat ze soldaat worden, en dat .ze criminelen in de gevangenis mag stoppen. Maar er hoort ook bij dat de regering in geval van besmettelijke ziekten ons mag dwingen in afzondering te gaan: ja, ze mag dan onze vrijheid afnemen. 'Voor het nut van het algemeen'.
Hier het blog van Moon of Alabama:
It Is Not 'Authoritarian' To Support Quarantine Measures - It Just Makes Sense
Yesterday James Corbett of The Corbett Report interviewed Kit Knightly of Off-Guardian about the corona crisis. At 18:30 minutes in Corbett finds it "disturbing" that some of the blogs who usually criticize governments, like Moon of Alabama, support the measures governments have taken to lower the speed of the novel coronavirus epidemic.
Corbett then highlights a discussion on Twitter between me and the Off-Guardian account.
It started with this:
vanessa beeley @VanessaBeeley - 5:33 UTC · Apr 9, 2020#BillGates funded World Health Organisation advocate forced removal of family members fm homes if "tested" positive for #COVID19 even tho test is not proven reliable. So, govts hve corralled us in homes & will now unlawfully raid & extract citizens under poss. false pretext.
I retweeted that and remarked:
Moon of Alabama @MoonofA - 22:30 UTC · Apr 9, 2020
China did this in phase 2 of the Wuhan quarantine because it was the only way to protect the families from their infected members. Without that policy Wuhan would not have ended the epidemic.
Current test reliability is relativ high if test is immediate used when symptoms appear.
OffGuardian retweeted my tweet and launched the discussion:
OffGuardian @OffGuardian0 - 10:54 UTC · Apr 9, 2020
Surely your not actually advocating the forced removal of “infected” people from their homes against their will? #COVID19 #coronavirusMoonofA: To separate infected from non-infected people is the ONLY way to stop such an epidemic.
OffGuardian: So let’s be totally clear. You believe the govts - the same ones who have lied us into wars, murdered innocents and destroyed the environment - should have the power to invade our homes and take away apparently healthy people whom they “SUSPECT” of being infected?
MoonofA: Our governments already have the right to do so under certain circumstances. An epidemic which threatens the health of all is one of them.
OffGuardian: That is not an answer. Do YOU believe these corrupt govts, which you have been opposing for so many years, should be able to enter people’s homes and take away people they claim to “suspect” of being infected?
MoonofA: I support quarantine measures during epidemics. We have had these for many centuries for good reasons. We should again use them.
OffGuardian: You support arrest and detention for people the govt claims to suspect MAY have a virus that - according to official estimates - is harmless or mild for 80-99% of those infected.
You do. MoA. Former champion of human rights and justice.
Have you lost your mind?
MoonofA: You are framing a measure that protects your and other families as "arrest" and "detention". It is neither of those.
OffGuardian: Oh ok. So, should the people ‘suspected’ of being infected be allowed to leave when they choose?
If your answer is ‘no’, then this IS arrest and detention and you are hiding behind blurry language.
As it made no sense to continue I stopped responding. Later Mark Sleboda jumped in to support my view:
Mark Sleboda @MarkSleboda1 - 5:02 UTC · Apr 9, 2020Replying to @OffGuardian0 and @MoonofA
Leviathan - save me and mine from such fools.
Another discussion between OffGuardian and him unfolded from that. OffGuardian seemed to become a bit desperate when it then tweeted this nonsense:
OffGuardian @OffGuardian0 - 19:14 UTC · Apr 9, 2020
Replying to @MarkSleboda1 @ghigoberni and @MoonofA
So you would support indefinite detention for anyone who may be carrying flu virus then. It’s a lot more dangerous to healthy people and children than #covid19, as any epidemiologist will tell you.
I have not heard of any epidemiologist who has claimed that. But maybe I am reading the wrong ones. This graphic though from the British Office of National Statistics does not look like a flu outbreak:
Source: ONS - bigger
The same ONS data was used by the Financial Times to produce this probably better visual:
Source: bigger
The few high blue dots around December/January time frame show exceptionally bad flu seasons like the London flu of 1972. Similar charts from other countries show the same effect for current covid-19 outbreaks. Without control measures like the current lock-downs the red line would certainly go through the roof.
The covid-19 disease the novel coronavirus causes is not a "flu". We largely do have 'herd immunity' against the flu. But this is a new virus causing a new disease. Nearly nobody is yet immune against it. It works in ways we are still just beginning to understand and there is no established therapy.
If we let this epidemic run wild without any control measures the death toll will be exceptionally high. The death per infection rate in Germany is currently estimated to be 0.53% (via Christian Drosten). It may be higher in other countries. That looks like a small number but remember that nearly no one has yet acquired immunity. It would probably take a year for the epidemic to run through a whole country.
Great Britain, with a population of some 60 million, would be theoretically looking at 300.000 excess death within one year. But the health care system would completely break down and thereby vastly increase the total death toll as there would be no care for most of the critical covid-19 patients and no beds for the usual other cases. That may already happen as Britain is now estimated to already have 41,000 excess death from the current epidemic.
Current estimates say that 2 to 3% of the population have so far developed anti-bodies against the virus. They likely give some immunity but we do not know how long that will hold. Should this epidemic have weather dependent waves the first one will likely end during the summer. Model calculations show that only some 6-7% of the population would by then have acquired immunity.
A second wave will then come during the winter. It will be worse as it will start everywhere at the same time and will come on top of the yearly flu season. We will then likely again need some harsh control measure like temporary lock-downs and case quarantains.
Now back to the Off-Guardian and Corbett critique. My view on the epidemic was always based on science. You can follow how it developed through the list of posts attached to this one. As I watched how China defeated its outbreak I had hoped that other governments would take similar measures. With globally concerted action we could have completely erased this disease!
But one slips into a pandemic with the governments one has, not with the ones one wishes for.
Will our 'elites' use the crisis to further enrich themselves. Sure. Will they abuse some of the control measures? That is practically guaranteed. And it does not change a damned thing with regards to the pandemic.
It is now too late to defeat it by eradicating its source. Social distancing measures like lock-downs are needed to keep the epidemic under control and to not overload our health care systems. Should the next outbreak wave be worse than the current one we will need even harsher measures than we currently have. I will support those because I know that they will save lives.
If that makes me an 'authoritarian' in the view of some then let it be so.
I for one find it more useful to tell people to make and wear masks than to post 'expert opinions' (scroll down) from PR-company sites which disagree with the scientific mainstream while their estimates of the total death toll have already been exceeded.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the issue:
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the issue:
- The Coronavirus - No Need To Panic - Jan 25 2020
- Novel Coronavirus Defies Conspiracy Theories As Data Shows Its Coming Decline - Feb 1 2020
- The Epidemic Recedes - Number Of New Coronavirus Cases In Decline - Feb 8 2020
- Coronavirus - Statistical Change Causes Confusion - New Case Count Continues To Decline - Feb 13 2020
- Coronavirus - The Decline Of New Cases Continues - Economic Ripples Begin To Emerge - Feb 21 2020
- As Virus Spreads Over The Planet Governments Are Slow To React - Feb 27 2020
- Coronavirus - Its Time To Press Your Government To React Faster - Feb 29 2020
- Coronavirus - Bad Preparation And Propaganda Increase The Onsetting Panic - Mar 6 2020
- Why Is The Coronavirus More Dangerous Than The Flu? - Mar 9 2020
- Coronavirus - The Hidden Cases - Why We Must Shut Everything Down And Do It Now - Mar 11 2020
- News-Nugget About The Coronavirus Pandemic - Mar 13 2020
- The Pandemic Will Cause A Global Depression - We Need Demand Side Measures To Counter It - Mar 16 2020
- Coronavirus - A Lockdown Is Not Enough - Mar 17 2020
- False Claims About The Novel Coronavirus And How To Debunk Them - Mar 19 2020
- Congress Grifters Profit From Crisis - Mar 20 2020
- Coronavirus - On Western Government Failures And Possible Therapies - Mar 21 2020
- Coronavirus - How To Lift Lockdowns And Why We Should All Wear Masks - Mar 23 2020
- More Bits On The Corona Crisis - Mar 26 2020
- U.S. Virus Cases Are Off The Scale - But Its People Can Build A Movement From This - Mar 31 2020
- China Did Not Deceive Us - Counting Death During An Epidemic Is Really Difficult - Apr 1 2020
- Why The U.S. Will Drown In Covid-19 Cases - Apr 2 2020
- U.S. Will Cover-up Its Own Coronavirus Death Toll - Apr 6 2020
- Debunking Some Ideas About The Virus - Apr 14 2020
- The New Anti-China Campaign Is Built On Lies - Apr 18 2020
Posted by b on April 22, 2020 at 18:02 UTC | Permalink
Ik heb het altijd heel jammer gevonden dat we in Crosstalk niet meer van Marc Sleboda konden horen.
ReplyDeleteIk zal Vanessa Beeley altijd blijven respecteren, alhoewel ik denk dat ze nu erg fout zit.
Blijkbaar is het nu ieder voor zich (zelfs als wij het momenteel grotendeels zeer eens zijn.)
De crux van het misverstand is dit:
DeleteIedereen is bezorgd dat de overheid ons meer wil controleren. ( You bet they will ! )
Maar we hebben diezelfde overheid wel de macht toegekend om 'voor ons eigen voordeel' vrijheden van individuen of van ons allen, in te perken.
( Voorbeeld:- misdadigers worden gevangen gezet: hun vrijheid wordt afgenomen.
- moeders moeten hun zoons afgeven aan de staat, om ten oorlog ter trekken. Soms met bijna zekerheid van sneuvelen. Maar als je als groep wil overleven, dan mòet je die macht aan de staat geven.
- Als er besmettelijke ziekten zijn, moet de staat de groep beschermen door de vrijheid van individuen in te perken. Heel legaal.
Waar velen moeite mee hebben is: ze zien niet hoe enorm de ramp zou zijn geworden als we niet al die maatregerlen hadden genomen.
( Ik verbaas me erg dat er nu nog elke dag zieken bij komen: die zijn dus de afgelopen 2 weken besmet ! Zelfs met al die voorzorg. Kun je nagaan wat zou zijn gebeurd als we die 'isolatie' niet hadden gedaan.)
Wat ik wel vind: Er zijn vééél intelligenter manieren om die isolatie te bereiken.
Maar goed, die heb ik op dit blog al vele malen beschreven.
Ik begin nu dus weer met de opstandigen mee te voelen: met hun eis tot verandering. Niet met de eis om het oude leven weer op te pakken.
Laat de jonegren aan het werk gaan. Eis mondkapjes in openbaar vervoer. Terrassen"open. Binnen restairants: alleen vopor beneden de 40 jaar. (Etc etc.)
[we hebben diezelfde overheid wel de macht toegekend]
ReplyDeleteHoe wil je dat terugdraaien, als blijkt, dat de overheid die macht misbruikt, zoals in dit geval? Of wil je dat helemaal niet en gewoon doormodderen met een corrupte overheid, die ook nog eens wordt aangestuurd door de totale -eveneens corrupte- MSM?
Bij Jensen (zoveel) vroeg iemand: Wat kan/moet ik doen? Daar had Jensen ook geen antwoord op. (Niet dat ik dat verwachtte hoor).
Dus mijn vraag aan jou: Wat kan ik doen, om de corruptie zichtbaar te maken en deze situatie beter te managen?
Hoewel ik ooit filosofie heb gestudeerd ( iniv. Utrecht) voor enkele jaren, weet ik me de teksten totaal niet te herinneren.
DeleteMaar mogelijk de grote lijnen wel:
In stamverband is alles helder: de man die de meeste steun heeft , wordt de baas.
Die zal er alles aan doen om zijn zoon als opvolger te krijgen. Dat geeft strijd en gedoe. En als de zoon slim is en wat Machiavellistische trekjes heeft, of als ie een heel goed leider is, dan volgt hij zijn vader op.
Maar het blijft klooien.
Fast Forward.
De zaak ligt nog precies hetzelfde: Zonder regering heb je het recht van de sterkste en de boosaardigste.
Je moet dus een regering hebben met alleenrecht op gebruik van geweld en met het recht mensen van hun vrijheid te beroven.
In elk land is dat nu zo.
Maar welk systeem hanteer je: democratie? Communisme ( wij allemaal zelf, de gewone man, aan de macht)? Of een dictator die steun heeft van de Big Corporations (zoals Hitler) .
Meestal kun je niet kiezen: er bestaat een systeem, en als er geen revolutie is, blijft dat bestaan.
Het democratisch systeem is het meest beloftevol, want het belooft ook een vrije pers die het volk waarschuwt als dat volk voor de gek wordt gehouden.
Maar een 'vijandige Elite' , die zichzelf heeft geselecteerd op 'de begaafdheid van het woord' ( door studie van de Talmoed) bepaalt nu wat wij als realiteit zien.
Ik weet ook niet hoe je dat terug moet draaien.
Maar ik weet wel dat je niet uit opstandigheid je hele land in een Corona kerkhof moet willen veranderen.
Dus eerst maximale vrijheid nastreven bij maximale isolatie, wat ik noem : mobiele quarantaine.
En dan met dat eeuwige probleem verder gaan: de strijd tussen volk en Elite.
Die strijd blijft altijd nodig, net als onkruid wieden.
Boeren die dat opgeven, gaan ten onder.
Op 10 januari heb ik nog een blogje geschreven over deze 'eeuwige strijd' tussen volk en Elite.
Gewoonlijk is het lot van de Elite afhankelijk van het lot van het volk. Maar nu, met een internationale , zelfs aan ons vijandige Elite, niet meer.
http://xevolutie.blogspot.com/2020/01/916-de-eeuwige-strijd.html
NB: Er zijn wel landen of delen van landen waar 'De Centrale Overheid' de macht over een gebeid is kwijtgeraakt. Waar een 'war lord' of een 'Maffia baas' of 'Drugs Lord' de baas is en de dienst uit maakt.
DeleteQua levenskwaliteit is dat eigenlijk voor het volk nog wel te doen, denk ik./ Als je hen niks in de weg legt en jouw werk doet, lukt het wel.
Maar soms vallen er wel erg veel doden. En de gewone bedrijven kunnen niet vooruit komen en ontwikkelen. Het is een samenleving zonder toekomst.
Dus om die situatie op te heffen hebben wij, volgens Rousseau, allemaal een stuk van onze vrijheid aan 'De Overheid' gegeven. Om het voor ons allemaal 'goed te doen'.
(6) The Grim Truth about the "Swedish Model": high death rate, exceeding USA
ReplyDeleteThe Grim Truth About the "Swedish Model": one of the world’s highest
COVID-19 death rates, exceeding USA; virus had hit around half of
Stockholm’s facilities for the elderly.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-coronavirus-no-lockdown-model-proves-lethal-by-hans-bergstrom-2020-04
The Grim Truth About the "Swedish Model"
Apr 17, 2020
Hans Bergstrom
As the coronavirus pandemic has swept the planet, Sweden has stood out
among Western democracies by pursuing a "low-scale" lockdown. Whether
this approach speaks to a unique strength of Swedish society, as opposed
to bad judgment, can be determined by comparing Sweden's COVID-19 rate
with its neighbors'.
STOCKHOLM – Does Sweden’s decision to spurn a national lockdown offer a
distinct way to fight COVID-19 while maintaining an open society? The
country’s unorthodox response to the coronavirus is popular at home and
has won praise in some quarters abroad. But it also has contributed to
one of the world’s highest COVID-19 death rates, exceeding that of the
United States.
In Stockholm, bars and restaurants are filled with people enjoying the
spring sun after a long, dark winter. Schools and gyms are open. Swedish
officials have offered public-health advice but have imposed few
sanctions. No official guidelines recommend that people wear masks.
During the pandemic’s early stages, the government and most commentators
proudly embraced this "Swedish model," claiming that it was built on
Swedes’ uniquely high levels of "trust" in institutions and in one
another. Prime Minister Stefan Löfven made a point of appealing to
Swedes’ self-discipline, expecting them to act responsibly without
requiring orders from authorities.
According to the World Values Survey, Swedes do tend to display a unique
combination of trust in public institutions and extreme individualism.
As sociologist Lars Trägårdh has put it, every Swede carries his own
policeman on his shoulder.
But let’s not turn causality on its head. The government did not
consciously design a Swedish model for confronting the pandemic based on
trust in the population’s ingrained sense of civic responsibility.
Rather, actions were shaped by bureaucrats and then defended after the
fact as a testament to Swedish virtue.
In practice, the core task of managing the outbreak fell to a single
man: state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell at the National Institute of
Public Health. Tegnell approached the crisis with his own set of strong
convictions about the virus, believing that it would not spread from
China, and later, that it would be enough to trace individual cases
coming from abroad. Hence, the thousands of Swedish families returning
from late-February skiing in the Italian Alps were strongly advised to
return to work and school if not visibly sick, even if family members
were infected. Tegnell argued that there were no signs of community
transmission in Sweden, and therefore no need for more general
mitigation measures. Despite Italy’s experience, Swedish ski resorts
remained open for vacationing and partying Stockholmers.
Vervolg van het informatieve artikel over de Zweedse Aanpak. ( Bran: Peter Myers Newsletter, 23 april)
DeleteBetween the lines, Tegnell indicated that eschewing draconian policies
to stop the spread of the virus would enable Sweden gradually to achieve
herd immunity. This strategy, he stressed, would be more sustainable for
society.
Through it all, Sweden’s government remained passive. That partly
reflects a unique feature of the country’s political system: a strong
separation of powers between central government ministries and
independent agencies. And, in "the fog of war," it was also convenient
for Löfven to let Tegnell’s agency take charge. Its seeming confidence
in what it was doing enabled the government to offload responsibility
during weeks of uncertainty. Moreover, Löfven likely wanted to
demonstrate his trust in "science and facts," by not – like US President
Donald Trump – challenging his experts.
It should be noted, though, that the state epidemiologist’s policy
choice has been strongly criticized by independent experts in Sweden.
Some 22 of the country’s most prominent professors in infectious
diseases and epidemiology published a commentary in Dagens Nyheter
calling on Tegnell to resign and appealing to the government to take a
different course of action.
By mid-March, and with wide community spread, Löfven was forced to take
a more active role. Since then, the government has been playing
catch-up. From March 29, it prohibited public gatherings of more than 50
people, down from 500, and added sanctions for noncompliance. Then, from
April 1, it barred visits to nursing homes, after it had become clear
that the virus had hit around half of Stockholm’s facilities for the
elderly.
Sweden’s approach turned out to be misguided for at least three reasons.
However virtuous Swedes may be, there will always be free riders in any
society, and when it comes to a highly contagious disease, it doesn’t
take many to cause major harm. Moreover, Swedish authorities only
gradually became aware of the possibility of asymptomatic transmission,
and that infected individuals are most contagious before they start
showing symptoms. And, third, the composition of the Swedish population
has changed.
After years of extremely high immigration from Africa and the Middle
East, 25% of Sweden’s population – 2.6 million of a total population of
10.2 million – is of recent non-Swedish descent. The share is even
higher in the Stockholm region. Immigrants from Somalia, Iraq, Syria,
and Afghanistan are highly overrepresented among COVID-19 deaths. This
has been attributed partly to a lack of information in immigrants’
languages. But a more important factor seems to be the housing density
in some immigrant-heavy suburbs, enhanced by closer physical proximity
between generations.
It is too soon for a full reckoning of the effects of the "Swedish
model." The COVID-19 death rate is nine times higher than in Finland,
nearly five times higher than in Norway, and more than twice as high as
in Denmark. To some degree, the numbers might reflect Sweden’s much
larger immigrant population, but the stark disparities with its Nordic
neighbors are nonetheless striking. Denmark, Norway, and Finland all
imposed rigid lockdown policies early on, with strong, active political
leadership.
Now that COVID-19 is running rampant through nursing homes and other
communities, the Swedish government has had to backpedal. Others who may
be tempted by the "Swedish model" should understand that a defining
feature of it is a higher death toll.
Hans Bergstrom, a former editor-in-chief of Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s
leading daily newspaper, is a professor of political science at the
University of Gothenburg and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of
Engineering Sciences.