Recommended Posts

Prior respiratory season severity has been proposed as an important factor, the point of the above list is that arguing that  lockdowns are  the prime factor effecting mortality is too simplistic. This request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies is interesting  https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b

 

Lockdowns are a Xi Jinping policy, and the significance of that fact cannot be overstated. The idea of locking down an entire state or country and forcibly shutting down its businesses and public places was never entertained, never discussed, and never implemented in any pandemic literature until it was done by General Secretary Xi in January 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockdown is new term borrowed from (mostly ) the prison system (or other secure facilities like  computer complexes  It used to be called quarantine

" The concept of quarantine has been known since biblical times and is known to have been practised through history in various places. Notable quarantines in modern history include that of the village of Eyam in 1665 during the bubonic plague outbreak in England; East Samoa during the 1918 flu pandemic; the Diphtheria outbreak during the 1925 serum run to Nome, the 1972 Yugoslav smallpox outbreak and extensive quarantines applied throughout the world during the COVID-19 pandemic since 2020.

 

1793 Philadelphia smallpox -  road blocks, patrols, inspections and quarantines

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine#History

 

Quarantine can include the following:

  • Staying strictly at home unless there is a medical emergency
  • Strictly keeping away from public spaces and public transport
  • Monitoring daily for Covid-19 symptoms such as shortness of breath, fever and cough
  • Washing hands with soap and water regularly
  • Regularly cleaning surfaces at home
  • Getting all necessities delivered at home and not stepping out
  • Staying alone and totally separate from others if possible

Quarantine measures can be enforced by the government, so people don’t have a choice in the matter as with social distancing.

 

If people do not comply then  'lockdown ' can be implemented

 

A lockdown can include the following:

  • Shutting down railways, flights and public transport
  • Shutting down restaurants and movie theatres
  • Monitoring the movement of people to track Coronavirus spread

 

There is a slight difference ; quarantine - stay at home and keep away from public transport . Lockdown -  stop public transport .

Stay at home ... means , dont go to a restaurant .    People keep going to restaurants  anyway despite the risk , so close them down ... they are not  supposed to be operating anyway .

 

Hardly  much difference except for the monitoring and tracking , and that is a good thing isnt it ?   . Maybe we have  Xi Jinping policy to thank for that .

 

If people still do not comply then a curfew can be implemented

 

A curfew can include the following:

  • Strict measures from the government to keep people indoors
  • Fines and arrests when the rules are violated

 

I suppose all this will be argued against and   terms 'corrected '   ...   whatever   ( while all the bodies pile up -  elsewhere )  

 

This originally started as a response to  ;

 

" i can't help but wonder how Wuhan achieved equilibrium with the virus without a vaccination, "

 

so, if I am wrong, what is the answer to this ?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason why lockdowns where not used before  ( that is  " the idea of locking down an entire state or country  "  ) is  people did not mix internationally ' travel around the world'  and internally in a country like they do now , we didnt have a global network like we do now .

 

Indeed , Covid is a sign of the times  and would never spread like it has without this international  ' world travel 'mixing dynamic  and everyone flying training and boating everywhere.  else .

 

World-airline-routemap-2009.png

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Another reason why lockdowns where not used before  ( that is  " the idea of locking down an entire state or country  "  ) is  people did not mix internationally and internally in a country like they do now , we didnt have a global network like we do now .

 

People have always moved internationally, in some periods and in many areas much more vigorously than today.  Remember that many (most) "states" and "countries" have never been a constant for very long, and what used to be routine (and unavoidable) local locomotion in many of them later becoming "international travel" has always been in a state of flux.  For just one example I'm best familiar with first hand, 30 years ago what is 15 different countries today, with borders, border patrol, travel requiring visas, passports, migration and immigration services all different and some insurmountable or draconian, any one of them wanting to do business with any one of the rest (or with an ally of any one of the rest) now requiring somehow working out 15 different sets of rules as to how (or whether) it will be conducted, etc. -- 

 

were all one country where none of that was the case.  I traveled freely across most of them on many occasions, on business or for pleasure or on a whim, and so did most people I knew.  I didn't know I was engaged in what would later become international travel.  I crossed what would be state borders dozens of times but they weren't then, so nothing was easier than to cross any one of them. 

 

What did realistically happen that made global lockdowns possible that never happened before is unprecedented advances of globalism unprecedentedly spearheaded by the CCP.  I think this open letter/complaint by a few attorneys and scientists who seem to share, to an extent, these conclusions merits some consideration:

https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told a lovely story about a farmer in Finland. When they were drawing up the Russian-Finnish border, the farmer had to decide whether he wanted to be in Russia or Finland. After a long time he said he wanted to be in Finland, but he didn’t want to offend the Russian officials. These came to him and wanted to know why he wanted to be in Finland. The farmer replied, ‘It has always been my desire to live in Mother Russia, but at my age I wouldn’t be able to survive another Russian winter.’

Anthony Demello

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

People have always moved internationally, in some periods and in many areas much more vigorously than today.  Remember that many (most) "states" and "countries" have never been a constant for very long, and what used to be routine (and unavoidable) local locomotion in many of them later becoming "international travel" has always been in a state of flux.  For just one example I'm best familiar with first hand, 30 years ago what is 15 different countries today, with borders, border patrol, travel requiring visas, passports, migration and immigration services all different and some insurmountable or draconian, any one of them wanting to do business with any one of the rest (or with an ally of any one of the rest) now requiring somehow working out 15 different sets of rules as to how (or whether) it will be conducted, etc. --  were all one country where none of that was the case.  I traveled freely across most of them on many occasions, on business or for pleasure or on a whim, and so did most people I knew.  I didn't know I was engaged in what would later become international travel.  I crossed what would be state borders dozens of times but they weren't then, so nothing was easier than to cross any one of them

 

 

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) estimates that internationally there were just 25 million tourist arrivals in 1950. 68 years later this number has increased to 1.4 billion international arrivals per year. This is a 56-fold increase.

 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/tourism

 

 

Quote

 

 

What did realistically happen that made global lockdowns possible that never happened before is unprecedented advances of globalism unprecedentedly spearheaded by the CCP.  I think this open letter/complaint by a few attorneys and scientists who seem to share, to an extent, these conclusions merits some consideration:

https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b

 

 

i wasnt commenting on what made it possible but what made it necessary.

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nungali said:

Lockdown is new term borrowed from (mostly ) the prison system (or other secure facilities like  computer complexes  It used to be called quarantine

" The concept of quarantine has been known since biblical times and is known to have been practised through history in various places. Notable quarantines in modern history include that of the village of Eyam in 1665 during the bubonic plague outbreak in England; East Samoa during the 1918 flu pandemic; the Diphtheria outbreak during the 1925 serum run to Nome, the 1972 Yugoslav smallpox outbreak and extensive quarantines applied throughout the world during the COVID-19 pandemic since 2020.

 

1793 Philadelphia smallpox -  road blocks, patrols, inspections and quarantines

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine#History

 

Quarantine can include the following:

  • Staying strictly at home unless there is a medical emergency
  • Strictly keeping away from public spaces and public transport
  • Monitoring daily for Covid-19 symptoms such as shortness of breath, fever and cough
  • Washing hands with soap and water regularly
  • Regularly cleaning surfaces at home
  • Getting all necessities delivered at home and not stepping out
  • Staying alone and totally separate from others if possible

Quarantine measures can be enforced by the government, so people don’t have a choice in the matter as with social distancing.

 

If people do not comply then  'lockdown ' can be implemented

 

A lockdown can include the following:

  • Shutting down railways, flights and public transport
  • Shutting down restaurants and movie theatres
  • Monitoring the movement of people to track Coronavirus spread

 

There is a slight difference ; quarantine - stay at home and keep away from public transport . Lockdown -  stop public transport .

Stay at home ... means , dont go to a restaurant .    People keep going to restaurants  anyway despite the risk , so close them down ... they are not  supposed to be operating anyway .

 

Hardly  much difference except for the monitoring and tracking , and that is a good thing isnt it ?   . Maybe we have  Xi Jinping policy to thank for that .

 

If people still do not comply then a curfew can be implemented

 

A curfew can include the following:

  • Strict measures from the government to keep people indoors
  • Fines and arrests when the rules are violated

 

I suppose all this will be argued against and   terms 'corrected '   ...   whatever   ( while all the bodies pile up -  elsewhere )  

 

This originally started as a response to  ;

 

" i can't help but wonder how Wuhan achieved equilibrium with the virus without a vaccination, "

 

so, if I am wrong, what is the answer to this ?

Did all of Asia, Pacific rim, sub Africa perfectly comply with NPI's ? There must of been some pre-immunity involved and also hyper testing is inflating the case numbers. https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32310-9/fulltext

deaths.jpeg

corona quiz .jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is messy.  An authoritarian regime can act quicker and get near total compliance.  There 'or else', starts with financial black balling and ends with state sanctioned murder.   

 

A Democratic country is full of states and countrymen all arguing disparate points.. ad nauseum.  What to do, what penalties, are up for grabs and too often politicized.

 

<course it helps to have leadership that listens and acts on the best available scientific information>

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) estimates that internationally there were just 25 million tourist arrivals in 1950. 68 years later this number has increased to 1.4 billion international arrivals per year. This is a 56-fold increase.

 

 

You missed my point entirely.  I invite you to re-read what I wrote for a second take.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thelerner said:

Democracy is messy.  An authoritarian regime can act quicker and get near total compliance.  There 'or else', starts with financial black balling and ends with state sanctioned murder.   

 

A Democratic country is full of states and countrymen all arguing disparate points.. ad nauseum.  What to do, what penalties, are up for grabs and too often politicized.

 

<course it helps to have leadership that listens and acts on the best available scientific information>

 

I was going to like your post, but first I had to put it through the committee . Unfortunately, some are still on holidays so I could not get a quorum . I was going to call an EGM  to deal with it   but, recklessly, I went against all  current legislation and bureaucracy and just clicked the like button myself .

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

You missed my point entirely.  I invite you to re-read what I wrote for a second take.  

 

 

 

Okay .

 

On 13/01/2021 at 10:51 AM, Taomeow said:

 

People have always moved internationally, in some periods and in many areas much more vigorously than today.

 

No matter how many times I read this , it doesnt make sense according to the statistics .  Unless your 'today; numbers are including current CV travel restrictions 'on this day ' .

 

 

On 13/01/2021 at 10:51 AM, Taomeow said:

 

 

  Remember that many (most) "states" and "countries" have never been a constant for very long, and what used to be routine (and unavoidable) local locomotion in many of them later becoming "international travel" has always been in a state of flux.  For just one example I'm best familiar with first hand, 30 years ago what is 15 different countries today, with borders, border patrol, travel requiring visas, passports, migration and immigration services all different and some insurmountable or draconian, any one of them wanting to do business with any one of the rest (or with an ally of any one of the rest) now requiring somehow working out 15 different sets of rules as to how (or whether) it will be conducted, etc. -- 

 

I edited my original  post to reflect this observation .

 

 

On 13/01/2021 at 10:51 AM, Taomeow said:

 

were all one country where none of that was the case.  I traveled freely across most of them on many occasions, on business or for pleasure or on a whim, and so did most people I knew.  I didn't know I was engaged in what would later become international travel.  I crossed what would be state borders dozens of times but they weren't then, so nothing was easier than to cross any one of them. 

 

I am supposing that in the re neolithic there where no 'countries' either .  Maybe thats why it appears there was no international travel back then ?

 

 

On 13/01/2021 at 10:51 AM, Taomeow said:

 

What did realistically happen that made global lockdowns possible that never happened before is unprecedented advances of globalism unprecedentedly spearheaded by the CCP.  I think this open letter/complaint by a few attorneys and scientists who seem to share, to an extent, these conclusions merits some consideration:

https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b

 

 

 

Hmmm ...   I did read  it again . BUT  it still appears  that you are talking about what made  lock downs possible  Where I was talking about what makes them necessary .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apech said:

This Tweet hasn't aged well ....

 

60009176348b5_ScreenShot2021-01-14at18_44_11.png.6bcdf0f79c632eba1d615be82684affc.png

 

The novel coronavirus  ? 

 

 

coronavirus-predicted-in-a-novel.jpg

'The Eye of Dakness' by Dean Koontz -  1981

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

The novel coronavirus  ? 

 

 

coronavirus-predicted-in-a-novel.jpg

'The Eye of Dakness' by Dean Koontz -  1981

 

Novel Coronavirus:

 

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good virus, must be in want of a host.”

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Hmmm ...   I did read  it again . BUT  it still appears  that you are talking about what made  lock downs possible  Where I was talking about what makes them necessary .

 

Necessary.  Uh-huh.  Two Chinese proverbs come to mind.  Locking the door when the thieves are already inside the house.  Locking the stable after the horse has escaped.  

 

There isn't and has never been any scientific justification.  This kind of response was actually very seriously considered before, during the 1957-1958 H2N2 ("Asian flu") pandemic (4 million deaths), and found by all epidemiologists and virologists of the world counterproductive, unnecessary, and harmful (and therefore was never implemented) precisely for this reason: there was overwhelming scientific evidence that once the virus of this level of contagion is circulating in the population, it is 100% impossible to 1) stop it with these measures and 2) avoid much deadlier consequences of a lockdown due to a multitude of factors.  One might say that was backward science and now we have advanced science -- and one would be absolutely wrong.  It wasn't backward science.  It was real solid epidemiology rooted in historical and scientific facts, currently replaced by party lines and political/profiteering agendas.  Xi was the one who invented the lockdown.  Of course he had helpers, but ultimately it was his decision and no one else's.  The WHO followed his lead, not vice versa.  He is not a scientist and not an epidemiologist.  

 

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Necessary.  Uh-huh.  Two Chinese proverbs come to mind.  Locking the door when the thieves are already inside the house.  Locking the stable after the horse has escaped.  

 

There isn't and has never been any scientific justification.  This kind of response was actually very seriously considered before, during the 1957-1958 H2N2 ("Asian flu") pandemic (4 million deaths), and found by all epidemiologists and virologists of the world counterproductive, unnecessary, and harmful (and therefore was never implemented) precisely for this reason: there was overwhelming scientific evidence that once the virus of this level of contagion is circulating in the population, it is 100% impossible to 1) stop it with these measures and 2) avoid much deadlier consequences of a lockdown due to a multitude of factors.  One might say that was backward science and now we have advanced science -- and one would be absolutely wrong.  It wasn't backward science.  It was real solid epidemiology rooted in historical and scientific facts, currently replaced by party lines and political/profiteering agendas.  Xi was the one who invented the lockdown.  Of course he had helpers, but ultimately it was his decision and no one else's.  The WHO followed his lead, not vice versa.  He is not a scientist and not an epidemiologist.  

 

 

 

Interesting!

 

What are the sources of your information regarding the experts' response during previous pandemics?

 

Would you happen to have some links to share?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Necessary.  Uh-huh.  Two Chinese proverbs come to mind.  Locking the door when the thieves are already inside the house.  Locking the stable after the horse has escaped.  

 

There isn't and has never been any scientific justification.  This kind of response was actually very seriously considered before, during the 1957-1958 H2N2 ("Asian flu") pandemic (4 million deaths), and found by all epidemiologists and virologists of the world counterproductive, unnecessary, and harmful (and therefore was never implemented) precisely for this reason: there was overwhelming scientific evidence that once the virus of this level of contagion is circulating in the population, it is 100% impossible to 1) stop it with these measures and 2) avoid much deadlier consequences of a lockdown due to a multitude of factors.  One might say that was backward science and now we have advanced science -- and one would be absolutely wrong.  It wasn't backward science.  It was real solid epidemiology rooted in historical and scientific facts, currently replaced by party lines and political/profiteering agendas.  Xi was the one who invented the lockdown.  Of course he had helpers, but ultimately it was his decision and no one else's.  The WHO followed his lead, not vice versa.  He is not a scientist and not an epidemiologist.  

 

 

 

And the lockdown approach magically worked in China but nowhere else.  Well, well well.  Makes you think.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Interesting!

 

What are the sources of your information regarding the experts' response during previous pandemics?

 

Would you happen to have some links to share?

 

Sure.  This article also contains a link to the full document.  https://www.aier.org/article/in-the-asian-flu-of-1957-58-they-rejected-lockdowns/

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Interesting!

 

What are the sources of your information regarding the experts' response during previous pandemics?

 

Would you happen to have some links to share?

 

2006 paper led by Don Henderson credited with small pox eradication

http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2006/2006-09-15-diseasemitigationcontrolpandemicflu.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So keep your distance.

I would say it retarded the speed, distance it travels :ph34r:

But what do I know?

Not enough to not watch tripe on the web.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Necessary.  Uh-huh.  Two Chinese proverbs come to mind.  Locking the door when the thieves are already inside the house.  Locking the stable after the horse has escaped.  

 

There isn't and has never been any scientific justification.  This kind of response was actually very seriously considered before, during the 1957-1958 H2N2 ("Asian flu") pandemic (4 million deaths), and found by all epidemiologists and virologists of the world counterproductive, unnecessary, and harmful (and therefore was never implemented) precisely for this reason: there was overwhelming scientific evidence that once the virus of this level of contagion is circulating in the population, it is 100% impossible to 1) stop it with these measures and 2) avoid much deadlier consequences of a lockdown due to a multitude of factors.  One might say that was backward science and now we have advanced science -- and one would be absolutely wrong.  It wasn't backward science.  It was real solid epidemiology rooted in historical and scientific facts, currently replaced by party lines and political/profiteering agendas.  Xi was the one who invented the lockdown.  Of course he had helpers, but ultimately it was his decision and no one else's.  The WHO followed his lead, not vice versa.  He is not a scientist and not an epidemiologist.  

 

 

 

Oh yes , of course its  too late for you guys !  I wasnt suggesting you implement it now , sorry, I thought people would understand that .

 

What I mean is , it has to be implemented right at the beginning .  here it was done right at the beginning , to a a seemingly crazy level, over the top reaction .   And the same each time it pops its head up .   Once it gets to a certain level , of course, this approach can't work.

 

By the way , most of our lockdowns have ended now , we go for days at a time  with no new infections broken up by the occasional batch of  a few arising .

 

  New jobs have appeared , one friend, unemployed for years ( so well before all of this ) now has 3 jobs , one got so busy he had to drop 2 .   Forget about getting a Tradie for anything , they are so booked ahead .   I am nearing  the end of my 3 month wait to get my bath house  tiled .  I only got the plumbing done  because the plumber is the son of my  closest friend , and I have known him since he was a baby . Local business has gone crazy ( the closed the border to Queensland as Xmas holidays started and the tourism backed up due to overflow down the coast , people are everywhere, shopping. cafes, accommodation, supermarkets, spending up .

 

So although we have had severe lock downs that have effected things in some ways ,  in other ways its improved things .  There was a time of 'rougher transition' at first .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites