COVID-19 News

[Randall]

​

Enforced Germaphobia By COVID-19 Measures:

• avoiding places perceived as germ-filled
• spending excessive time cleaning and decontaminating
• washing hands obsessively
• refusing to share personal items
• avoiding physical contact with others
• fearing contamination of children
• avoiding crowds or animals

Many Physical Symptoms of Germaphobia Are The Same As Those of COVID-19.

• rapid heartbeat
• sweating or chills
• shortness of breath
• chest tightness or pain
• light-headedness
• tingling
• shaking or tremors
• muscle tension
• restlessness
• nausea or vomiting
• headache
• difficulty relaxing

 

[Randall]

On Forced Vaccinations In Canada - Can governments require a person be vaccinated, and impose sanctions if they don’t, or even forcibly vaccinate a person?

The issue of mandatory and forced vaccination in light of COVID-19 | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

by Justice Centre Staff The issue of mandatory (and perhaps even forced) vaccination has increasingly been the subject of discussion due to the COVID-19 situation. Canada’s governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels have violated Canadians’ Charter freedoms to move, travel...

www.jccf.ca

Mandatory vaccinations: The international landscape - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Randall]

So I've Been Wrong All Along - It's not simply germaphobia
It's Actually Coronaphobia​

How tragic that Coronaphobia is turning our land of liberty into a Stasi-like state

"The brief conversation seems harmless enough. Setting out to do the weekly shop with your three children, you bump into Mr and Mrs Smith and their daughter from down the road.​

​

Naturally you stop for a chat. It all seems so innocent — the sort of social interaction that makes for a happy and healthy community.​

​

A few hours later, though, you receive a call from the local police station. You are told that a well-meaning neighbour spotted your seemingly harmless exchange and has reported you for breaking the new so-called ‘rule of six’ restrictions on socialising ..."​

ROSS CLARK: Coronaphobia is turning our land into a Stasi-like state

ROSS CLARK: You are told that a neighbour spotted your exchange and has reported you for breaking the new so-called 'rule of six' restrictions on socialising.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Randall]

Is 'coronaphobia' more deadly than the coronavirus?

Last month, a study of 50 countries in the top medical journal Lancet confirmed most of this. COVID-19 mortality correlates more with obesity rates than lockdowns, while movement restrictions and border closures lowered cases without saving lives.

Is 'coronaphobia' more deadly than the coronavirus?

The mission creep from flattening the curve to eradicating COVID-19 has been ill-conceived and calamitous.

www.japantimes.co.jp

 

[Randall]

COVID-19 is deepening the hunger crisis in the world’s hunger hotspots and creating new epicentres of hunger across the globe. By the end of the year 12,000 people per day could die from hunger linked to COVID-19, potentially more than will die from the disease itself.

The hunger virus: how COVID-19 is fuelling hunger in a hungry world | Oxfam International

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/wp2020-43.pdf

 

[Randall]

The Hidden Deaths Of The COVID Pandemic

Sara Sittner began using narcotics again after the COVID-19 pandemic dismantled elements of her sobriety support system. On the Thursday after Easter, Sekera discovered her sister’s body. “No little sister should have to go through that,” Sekera says ....

The Hidden Deaths Of The COVID Pandemic - KFF Health News

Counting deaths caused by the coronavirus pandemic is easier said than done. Without widespread testing, officials must sort through presumed COVID deaths and those who died with infections rather than from them. Then there are the indirect deaths of people who died from circumstances created by...

khn.org

 

[Randall]

The public health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the emerge of a range of other, tangential health conditions, from isolation-induced "coronaphobia" to "maskne," or skin breakouts as a result of wearing a mask ...

An Eye Doctor Explains How to Prevent Dry Eyes When Wearing a Mask

Optometrist Joseph Allen recommends some ways to avoid mask associated dry eye during the pandemic.

www.menshealth.com

 

[Randall]

Trump says, "Don't let Coronavirus dominate you."

So what now? Will all the Trump haters automatically let Coronavirus dominate their lives just to spite Trump, while all the Trump supporters will start having mass pajama parties?

And, what's this deal with people driving cars into crowds? Before the pandemic this would be front page news. Now nobody cares?

Woman Charged With Attempted Murder After Driving Into Pro-Trump Protesters

It's the latest in a string of vehicular violence since nationwide protests over systemic racism began in May.

www.npr.org

Man charged with crashing car into Trump voter registration at Florida shopping center

Gregory Timm, 27, also reportedly flipped the bird at Trump campaign volunteers.

nypost.com

​

 

[Randall]

Henrietta Fore, UNICEF’s executive director, said in a statement. “Without urgent investments to re-start disrupted health systems and services, millions of children under five, especially newborns, could die.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/09/25/pandemic-pushes-hundreds-millions-people-toward-starvation-poverty/

Let's be clear here: This isn't because of the virus. It's because of pandemic management, mainly the economic lockdowns and poorly funded medical programs.

 

[Randall]

Coronaphobia and Mask Shaming

More articles on the physical, psychological, and cultural damage of mask wearing seem to come out every day, yet coronaphobes repeat the mantra that masks don't hurt anyone. Another coronaphobe repeats the myth that every mask saves lives. Another cries out, "Don't be a maskhole!"

As if that's not enough, citizens are being encouraged to report violators so that they can be tracked down and fined. Even worse, surveillance cameras are being used to identify and fine those who don't comply. In the coronaphobes mind, this is all perfectly justifiable because it eases their fear that the virus is going to get them or their kids or their dear old grandmother. But let's have a closer look at just how reasonable that fear is.

First of all, here in Alberta, masks aren't mandatory everywhere because according to the Chief Medical Officer, COVID-19 isn't everywhere in Alberta, and if the virus isn't present, a mask is pointless. Next, let's identify where all the viruses in question actually are. As of when I wrote this, the population of Alberta was 4,371,000 and there were 1,783 confirmed cases of COVID-19.

So assuming everyone has an equal chance of catching the virus, you would have a 0.04% chance of contracting it, but only if you came into close enough contact with everyone you meet to actually accommodate transmission. Roughly speaking that means you'd have to come into close contact with 2500 people every time you go out. By this I don't mean simply being at an event with 2500 people, but actually interacting with each and every one of them in close enough proximity to ensure transmission. Does that describe your life? Probably not.

But let's have an even closer look. The distribution of coronavirus isn't uniform. The studies show that it's concentrated in certain geographical locations. Some places have no virus at all. So in reality the percentage is a range from zero to under 0.02% for areas like major cities.

But even then, within these cities are areas where there is no virus. The largest percentage of active cases are contained in self-isolation or healthcare facilities. So sure, wear a mask in those situations ( duh ). But where does that leave the rest of the 99.98% of the 1.6 million citizens here ? It leaves them them wandering around with the irrational fear that without their mask, they are going to win the COVID-19 lottery.

I suppose that so long as there's a chance someone can win, eventually someone will win, but even then, exposure doesn't guarantee infection, and infection doesn't even guarantee symptoms.There's a 40% chance ( or more ) that the symptoms will be so mild that the person doesn't even know they have it. The majority of the rest will recover fine in 14 days, and a very few of the remainder will have more serious problems. It's possible that someone might die, but the stats on mortality rates from COVID-19 indicate that the vast majority of that tiny fraction of the population already have one foot in the grave anyway, and if COVID-19 isn't the final straw, some other form of pneumonia or another condition would be.

Now some might argue that there are more cases out there than those which have been confirmed as active. Okay fine, if up to 40% of victims don't know they have it, let's just increase the number by 100% to be on the safe side, which would mean there are 5000 cases out there, half of which we know are in medical facilities or voluntary isolation. So unless you go to one of the places where the known cases are, the chances of actually meeting a rogue carrier it still the same ( between zero and 0.02% ).

The bottom line is that:

Drastic measures have been imposed on millions of perfectly healthy people,
all for the sake of a 0.02% chance that they might get a disease
that is so mild that 40% of those who get it
don't even know they have it. ​

To me the above seems more than a little irrational, and that's exactly what coronaphobia is, irrational. Far more damage has been done to our community and way of life by enforced lockdowns and behavior control than the virus itself, but the authorities continue to impose their coronaphobia on us anyway. When will it end?

 

[Randall]

More Fake News - Or The Real Thing?

This scientist has supposedly been discredited for her claims, but her counterpoint
makes perfect sense and is aligned with the findings I pointed
out much earlier in this discussion.
​

So the question remains: Why there is so much unsubstantiated opposition to her claims? And to be clear, I say "unsubstantiated" because even though the opposition to Dr. Li-Meng Yan has come from people with credentials, their counterpoint has not been based on their own scientific research. They have simply parrotted the claims of other researchers, whose conclusions were based more on opinion than scientific evidence. I know this because I've looked at those sources, and one doesn't have to be a PhD virologist to decipher it.

The problem is that most news reporting agencies, and people in general, don't have the time to dig into the various claims behind this story. And even if they did, they don't have enough comprehension of the science to tell who is making the more reasonable claim. They simply report what they have been told. From my personal efforts to get to the bottom of this issue, I find Dr. Li-Meng Yan's claims are entirely reasonable. She is not being discredited with actual evidence or reason, but with biopolitical opinion.

As a caveat, this doesn't mean she is necessarily the real thing, and her delivery does seem to be colored by her own political views, but if she's not the real thing, then what other motivation would there be for her fleeing her country and putting her family at risk over a concocted conspiracy theory? And if it's true, why shouldn't she have an anti CCP bias? Does your political bias for or against your chosen party necessarily mean what you say about them is false? No. The two things are separate issues.

​

 

[Randall]

MAJOR PROBLEM HERE - THE ETHICS OF COVID-19

Let's have a closer look at these claims

Herd immunities are achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

Who says the only issue upon which to plant our high and mighty ethical flag on is "Herd Immunity"? Shouldn't saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people over generations by not throwing them and their parents into a state of abject poverty rate at least as high on the ethical priority list?

Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic.

Again: Who say's the most important issue here is Herd Immunity?

It's scientifically and ethically problematic.

Maybe it's more "ethically problematic" to dwell on this theory rather than focus on getting people back to their real lives.

Letting the virus ciculate unchecked therefore means allowing unnecessary infections, suffering, and deaths.

Who said anyone is endorsing the idea of "letting the virus ciculate unchecked"? It's not as if all of us unwashed masses never take a shower or clean our homes. It's an entirely front-loaded proclamation. What about the "unnecessary suffering and death" caused by non-infections that are already happening due to pandemic management?

We're only beginning to understand the long term health impacts among people with COVID-19.

So what if "were only just beginning to understand the long term health impacts"? All we need to know is enough to solve our immediate concerns,
and depending on how you define "normal", there's plenty enough information to determine that it's safe to let everyone to go back to being normal.

By that, I don't mean going back to ignoring stay-home-when-sick and other behavior that people were supposed to do anyway prior to COVID-19.

Allowing a dangerous virus that we don't fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It's not an option.

What about the ethics of the crackdowns, lockdowns, fines and other Draconian measures on the behavior of millions of people whose lives and livelihoods are at stake because of the increased business and job losses? And who are these people to tell us what our "options" should be anyway?

To be fair, this is a very short clip, but from this limited bit of information, it appears that he needs to take a more holistic approach.

 

[Randall]

Health Experts Join Global Anti-lockdown Movement
The Great Barrington Declaration
Too Little Too Late?​

Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say lockdowns are having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement

Scientists warn of the "devastating" effect of Covid-19 policies, calling for a return to normal for healthy people.

www.bbc.com

David Staples: Lockdowns will cause 10 times more harm to human health than COVID-19 itself, says infectious disease expert

The harm caused by lockdowns is much worse than the disease of COVID-19. That’s the argument from numerous public health officials and economists around the world, …

edmontonjournal.com

 

[Randall]

The Great Barrington Declaration
Please sign it as a either a professional or as a concerned citizen

As of the date of this post

​

... lockdowns, contact tracing and isolation, imposes enormous unnecessary health costs on people. In the long run, it will lead to higher COVID and non-COVID mortality ...

Great Barrington Declaration and Petition

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection

gbdeclaration.org

Great Barrington Declaration: COVID Lockdowns Unnecessary

Great Barrington Declaration: “Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.”

www.infectioncontroltoday.com

 

[Randall]

A Couple of Myths about the Great Barrington Declaration Exposed:

Screenshots from the site: https://gbdeclaration.org/



These look like direct retorts to Mr. Tedros ( Above )

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I’ve heard this. But how do you protect adults from being infected by their kids, or teachers by their young students? And some kids get awfully sick from the disease.

 

[Randall]

I’ve heard this. But how do you protect adults from being infected by their kids, or teachers by their young students? And some kids get awfully sick from the disease.

From the evidence now gathered, the measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have been disproportionate to its danger. This is what the numbers look like here.

Drastic measures have been imposed on millions of perfectly healthy people,
all for the sake of a 0.02% chance that they might get a disease
that is so mild that 40% of those who get it
don't even know they have it. ​

Yes, some people have worse symptoms than others, but even the common cold can kill a small subset of the population. However we don't put millions of people out of work, close schools, and take away people's basic right to gather because of it. The fear is being perpetuated by the "if it bleeds it leads" strategy of the media, and it's influencers, most of whom have simply been parroting other fear mongers.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that everyone should become blasé about it. For prevention, it's still reasonable to take the same sort of precautions as were advised with any type of infection before COVID-19, and if people want to voluntarily go further with it, like wear masks outside high-risk environments, and get vaccinations, then that should be their choice.

The rest is coronaphobia that has pushed all those who were already germaphobes before the pandemic completely over the edge, Now they want the rest of society to cater to their neurosis.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Hospitals are bracing for an overload of intensive care patients. Check the situation in El Paso, Texas for what's going on. It is not "coronaphobia."

A huge problem is the erratic and inadequate nature of healthcare in the U.S., meaning that people don't go to the hospital till they are really really sick. With proper treatment, or at least having a family doctor a phone call away, might help provide the medical advice they need.

For millions, their only source of healthcare is the emergency room, because these facilities must take patients regardless of the ability to pay, by a law passed during the Reagan administration. But they are not equipped to handle routine care, only making matters worse.

Also, most people, and even some medical facilities, don't seem to know that recent laws mean they shouldn't be charged for coronavirus treatment.

 

[Randall]

Hospitals are bracing for an overload of intensive care patients. Check the situation in El Paso, Texas for what's going on. It is not "coronaphobia."

So under the Great Barrington Declaration, El Paso would be classed as a hot spot to target with resources for treatment and prevention, while areas not under the same strain would be business as usual, thereby contributing to the resource pool for relief. Makes sense right?

A huge problem is the erratic and inadequat4e nature of healthcare in the U.S., meaning that people don't go to the hospital till they are really really sick. With proper treatment, or at least having a family doctor a phone call away, might help provide the medical advice they need.

Makes total sense, and that could have all been put in place all over the nation entirely for free with the 4 trillion spent so far ( according to the sites I've seen ) rather than locking down the economy and having to compensate perfectly healthy victims of that management strategy.

For millions, their only source of healthcare is the emergency room, because these facilities must take patients regardless of the ability to pay, by a law passed during the Reagan administration. But they are not equipped to handle routine care, only making matters worse. Also, most people, and even some medical facilities, don't seem to know that recent laws mean they shouldn't be charged for coronavirus treatment.

And again, if all the compensation money that has been allocated to perfectly healthy people who were running businesses that were forced to close because of lockdowns, had been put toward helping actual cases, that situation would be solved, but you've got a system down there that sees any government funded healthcare as some sort of commie plot to destroy democracy.

In reality it's just that the executives and investors in the healthcare insurance industry ( which it shouldn't be in the first place ), don't want to see their positions and profits compromised. There's execs at the top of those pyramids with private jets and mansions with swimming pools, while poor and middle class people either struggle or simply can't afford proper medical care. Then your government decides to throw millions more into a state of poverty by forcing them out of work. How does that make any sense at all?

The Great Barrington Declaration aims to help the poor and others without proper medical care survive with focused care, while minimizing the increase in poverty because of economic lockdowns. We ought to be supporting this approach and stop buying into the propaganda that it's all about herd immunity or a trade-off between saving business and saving lives. It about saving lives all-around, while maintaining a standard of living and the same democratic freedoms the detractors say they want, but are willing to give-up in favor of their misplaced ideology.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just FYI: The controversial "Obamacare" or Affordable Care Act, although falsely labeled as some sort of socialized medicine, is actually a based in large part on a Republican plan that was originated by the conservative Heritage Foundation several decades ago. That includes the so-called individual mandate, that fines people who don't have health coverage in order to make sure the insurance pool is as wide as possible. It uses the private insurance market, thus helping to guarantee that those companies will have a steady flow of busiensss.

It was put into effect in Massachusetts when Republican Mitt Romney (now a Utah Senator) was governor there.

When President Obama originally decided to push for a national health care plan in his first term, being a rather moderate individual, he opted to choose a national version of that plan, developed with some of the same people who worked on Romney's plan, no doubt under the mistaken belief that Republicans would work with Democrats to push it through.

Republicans opposed it, even though they would have enthusiastically supported it had Senator McCain been elected instead.

Romney opposed the national version of his plan when he ran against Obama in 2012.

I trust that tells you just how screwed up healthcare is down here in the colonies.