COVID-19: A bloody battle or a long war?

[Stario]

Your civil liberties only go as far as they don't infringe on other people's civil liberties. If you're a 90 year old cancer patient, and you want to go out and have fun at a crowded pub and catch Covid, the other people who you will through necessity contact during the course of your illness didn't choose to be exposed to your virus.

"Other people" knew the risks and could have stayed home locked themselves down if so they wished, so by going to that "crowded pub" they also made a choice. No one forced them to go to that "crowded pub", again the key world is 'voluntary'...so I see no civil liberties infringed.

Even the nurses and doctors who will look after you unconscious on your ventilator will be exposed to your infection simply to care for you - simply for you to exercise a flawed concept of choice. Sure they can choose not to care for you, but I'm uncertain whether you're advocating health care professionals simply go home every time a sick patient shows up at a clinic.

1. As a Doctor I made that choice to care for the sick, again I am not forced to be a clinician -I can choose another career path/to resign from my post as a clinician -and go into a non-clinician role within the health care system or find a new career.
So yes any Doctor or Nurse that doesn't want to look after me while "I am on that ventilator..." is not forced to look after me, they can go find another career. Again You made the choice to be a Doctor or Nurse that is your choice, but no one is forcing you to stay in that career if you deem it too dangerous not safe for you.

2. Clinicians/Health staff use PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), I am not advocating we don't use PPE, but I should have the choice to go to that crowded pub at 90 years old with my Cancer and PPE. AND the other people in that pub have the choice NOT to go to that "crowded pub", to go there with their PPE, or to go there without PPE and take the risk. Again we are not driving a truck through civil liberties...

[Heathen Hammer]

The problem is that the infrastructure required to isolate the large percentage of the population considered vulnerable (old, diabetes, etc etc) is too big. You can't just tell old people to stay at home. They need food, which requires access to supply chains. Many elderly require health care support, which requires a support chain. The reason why there has been so many outbreaks in retirement homes around the world even in spite of them being identified for care, is that even detention needs support staff. And all it takes is one staff to catch Covid and not be symptomatic, they spread it to other staff, to the vulnerable.

The 'lock up the vulnerable' approach is simply flawed, because people literally can't be isolated enough

It is a plausible alternative to a much less possible task of isolating everyone. Creating an infrastructure to aid those people is an easier task then working around maintaining economy during the lockdown.

[Ludicus]

basiacally what most governments are doing is driving a truck through civil liberties...

Basically what most governments are doing is trying to slow the spread of the virus, and preventing deaths.In Sweden, a country of ten million, much more than 5.000 aged 70 or above died in the pandemic, in stark contrast with Sweden's neighbours.The sad thing is that behind the impulse to spread the virus, in Sweden, and let's not forget America and Brazil, there is a moral bankruptcy.
---

Jacobson v. Massachusetts it's more actual than ever.
The Constitutionality of Facemasks and COVID-19 – UMCHHS

The principle for upholding the Massachusetts statute is derived from the Supreme Court’s belief that “The right to preserve life is the most sacred right of man.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).

Justice John Marshall Harlan

Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.

In the name of civil liberties, feel free to drive on the wrong side of the street.

[Stario]

Basically what most governments are doing is trying to slow the spread of the virus, and preventing deaths.In Sweden, a country of ten million, much more than 5.000 aged 70 or above died in the pandemic, in stark contrast with Sweden's neighbours.The sad thing is that behind the impulse to spread the virus, in Sweden, and let's not forget America and Brazil, there is a moral bankruptcy.

No one is arguing this isn't a disease of the old. Interestingly, Sweden's deaths per capita statistic is now lower than the USA and still dropping; averaging only 1 death per day for the last 10 days.
---

In the name of civil liberties, feel free to drive on the wrong side of the street.

In the name of civil liberties feel free to ban all motor vehicles -as motor vehicles cause 1.35 million deaths per year globally -this is more than covid19 has thus far caused and its been around for nearly a year- and this is just between ages 1-54 (not including 55+ age groups)....you should do a google search how many people died from C19 globally between ages 1-54.
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/...ety/index.html

[PointOfViewGun]

No one is arguing this isn't a disease of the old. Interestingly, Sweden's deaths per capita statistic is now lower than the USA and still dropping; averaging only 1 death per day for the last 10 days.

Unless the dead are rising in Sweden, deaths per capita can not fall. Currently, Sweden suffered 565.7 deaths per 1 million while USA suffered 589 deaths per 1 million. You're comparing a country with one of the best healthcare systems in the world with, well, whatever USA has.

In the name of civil liberties feel free to ban all motor vehicles -as motor vehicles cause 1.35 million deaths per year globally -this is more than covid19 has thus far caused and its been around for nearly a year- and this is just between ages 1-54 (not including 55+ age groups)....you should do a google search how many people died from C19 globally between ages 1-54.
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/...ety/index.html

No one needs to do a Google search. You have tried to deceive people like this before and was silent at the slightest sign of facts. You could not respond to this post:

Back in 2018, motor vehicle deaths in USA was 36,560. With tens of millions of people exposed to being in a car the infection fatality rate would be minuscule compared to COVID19. While its hard to know an exact number of people that are in a car at any time within a year, in 2018, there were over 200 million people with driver's license in USA. The IFR for vehicle deaths are no higher than 0.0001%. About a magnitude of a 1000 difference compared to COVID19. So, yeah, just like any information Stario gave on this topic, this information he winked at is equally faulty.

What a joke your posts are.

[Gaius Baltar]

I believe now that the fight against COVID19 is actually a battle within the long asymmetrical war with the CCP and their global allies. It appears that there are mounting claims that the virus was manufactured, something suspected from the very beginning of the crisis.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan provides insight into the viruses origin in the labs of Wuhan, China.

The noteworthy support of the CCP and its activities by the global media and the US democratic party further suggest some type of collusion in order to control the outcome of the upcoming Presidential election.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Thats nothing more than a far right fake news and conspiracy theory:

Origin of the Coronavirus - right-wing US networks scatter laboratory theory

A study by an exiled Chinese researcher on the origin of the coronavirus makes headlines. This is carefully orchestrated by former presidential adviser Steve Bannon.

Since the outbreak of the corona pandemic, the question has been raised as to whether the virus is of natural origin or whether it could have broken out from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This theory, previously rejected by the majority of the scientific community and official organizations, received a new boost from a new publication by a Chinese researcher who fled to the USA in April.

In a study published online and not peer-reviewed, the virologist Yan Li-Meng writes that while analyzing the virus, she was able to identify certain structures that would prove human manipulation of the virus - and thus a laboratory origin.

The publication also received a lot of media attention in Germany.
What are the author's allegations?

In her numerous media appearances, Yan, who previously worked as a researcher on infectious diseases at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), claims to have found evidence of a laboratory origin months ago. The results were disregarded by her university and deleted from her computer, Yan said.

Yan says she was given a secret assignment by an HKU professor in December 2019 to be one of the first researchers to study the new virus. The university and the appointed professor have contradicted this representation. Yan did not do any research on the subject between December and January.

How do other scientists react?

The overwhelming majority of experts, researchers, and governments around the world consider a natural evolution of the virus to be the most likely origin. They come to this conclusion on the basis of several scientific studies that have been published in various scientific journals in recent months.

The correctness of Yan's genome analysis of the coronavirus can only be assessed by researchers. However, the judgment of established experts on Twitter in the past few days has been clearly negative:

Kristian G. Andersen is Professor of Immunology at the Scripps Research Institute

https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/sta...annon-100.html

Angela Rasmussen is a virologist at Columbia University

https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/...annon-100.html

In her new paper, Yan claims that established journals specifically suppress dissenting opinions - but without describing how this should actually work. It is difficult to imagine and practically impracticable that all of the world's leading medical journals, independently of one another and with the knowledge of countless researchers, specifically censor certain opinions on a controversial topic.

Renowned journals like Nature and The Lancet last published research on the coronavirus in March and May, in which Yan was involved. So she is established in this research area and was published by those specialist magazines that she currently accuses of suppressing her work.

In her paper published on Monday, Yan also refers to a colorful mixture of scientific sources and off-the-wall blog posts and obscure news sites such as "gmwatch.org" or "nerdhaspower.weebly.com".

Who is behind the Yan study?

There are clear links between the Yan study, the prominent Chinese exiled Guo Wengui, and influential US right-wingers such as ex-presidential adviser Steve Bannon.

In the study, Yan and her three co-authors are named as representatives of an organization called the Rule of Law Society. This New York-based organization belongs to the exiled Chinese businessman Guo Wengui, who also runs several news sites that deal critically with the Chinese dictatorship - but also spread a lot of misinformation and clearly belong to the extreme right-wing spectrum in the USA.

For several days, several of Guo's social media channels such as "Voice of Guo" or "GNews" have been reporting almost exclusively on Yan's new study. Guo operates these platforms in close collaboration with Steve Bannon. The Twitter cover picture of "Voice of Guo" shows Bannon and Guo praying together. Bannon was briefly arrested on August 20th on Guo's yacht on charges of fraud.

Guo appears regularly on Bannon's podcasts, such as War Room: Pandemic on February 21. The broadcast was deleted by Youtube due to the spread of false information. Back then, too, it was about laboratory theory. On July 29th, Bannon, Yan and Lude Fangtan, a Chinese journalist who was influential among opponents of the regime, appeared together in another issue of "War Room: Pandemic".

In his own YouTube broadcast, Lude showed photos on September 10th in which he, Rudy Giuliani, lawyer for US President Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Yan Li-Meng can be seen together. "GNews" published higher-resolution versions of the photos on which more details can be seen. The day before the publication of her study, researcher Yan appeared on Giuliani's podcast and promoted her theses.

An English-language Twitter account Yans set up in September was blocked by Twitter after a short time. Nothing is known about the background of the three authors alongside Yan, only they have so far appeared publicly.
Conclusion

In terms of content, Yan Li-Meng's paper can only be reviewed by other scientists. Their first reactions were consistently critical. The large public that Yan is now experiencing is deliberately planned by influential opponents of Steve Bannon's Chinese government.

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panor...annon-100.html

The most important point for me is, that other virologists point out that Yans theory is lacking scientific standards.

Its nothing more than far right propaganda to catch voters for El Presidente in November.

[Stario]

If it was ever proven the China virus was "man made", that would be HUGE! That would mean the CCP effectively unleashed a 'biological weapon' against the world.