Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

Catherine Austin Fitts | Full Interview | Planet Lockdown


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-0XKY ... =emb_title

•Dec 22, 2020
Truth Matters

This sit down interview with Catherine covers the spectrum of the current situation we find ourselves in.

It was conducted as apart of the full length documentary. We are releasing the full interview for the betterment of public understanding of the situation.

Catherine's analysis can be found at:
https://home.solari.com

The full film, when released, will be available at https://www.PlanetLockdownFilm.com

Sign up to receive notification of the release of the feature length documentary film and full interviews by clicking here:

https://aw6dcc5.aweb.page/p/28c34ce9-...

We are not monetizing these video but do request anyone to make a donation to fund more videos like this:
gf.me/u/zdqxz7

On Bitchute as well:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2hnQXD...

Someone created a French version that can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqqYc...

Hmmm. Youtube censored the video.

[mentalgongfu2]

outside of a [frankly petty, but minor] attempt at a jab at my expense upthread, I've no animosity or ill will here. I simply have nothing more to add to this topic that hasn't already been conveyed.

I have no personal ill will toward you, Belligerant Savant.

Pithy though I may have been, and I will admit to perhaps leaning toward the rude side, there was no hidden malice in my prior post. You have made your opinion known quite vociferously, and I am simply of the opinion that repeating the same conclusions further in this thread anytime someone disagrees is not productive toward dialogue. You have formed a very strong opinion, and I don't have any motivation to try and dissuade you from it. It is somewhat of an impasse.

How my complete one-word agreement with something you said yourself is considered uncalled for, well, I would suggest that is something best explored in a thread about online communication, a ripe topic that I would be happy to explore in a separate thread. In this one, I'd much prefer to see a focus on coronavirus-related stuff, and in my ideal world, from a perspective that maybe isn't from the one person who has dominated this thread for pages and made their opinion quite evident such that they themselves concluded they have nothing more to add.

[mentalgongfu2]

Addendum: All that said, if you wish to have a dialogue and unpack our points of disagreement, BS, I am game. I would ask only that you let me start and that we avoid as much as possible asking each other to watch a video or read an article and just talk about what we know, from our lives, in an effort to avoid becoming just another Internet argument.. We can just talk, like people. I would start by saying that you and I are clearly starting from different POVs. An important aspect of mine is that I have been hospitalized during the COVID times. Not for the virus, but during the virus, so I gained some real life observations about how it was being handled right near the start of it being taken seriously in the US. From March 30 to April 2, to be exact. That frames my perspective. I suppose next would be your turn to ask a question or clarify your personal POV.

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/Covid19Critical/sta ... 9989586946

[Belligerent Savant]

.

https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/f/our- ... qus_thread

Left lockdown Sceptics

Our analysis of lockdown and covid-fascism

11 January 2021


Introduction

We are a group of socialists in the UK who oppose lockdown policy on the basis that it doesn't work, is based on bad science and causes unnecessary harm and deaths to society. The impact of lockdown is most severe on the working class and vulnerable people, including children. This document aims to provide an accurate narrative of the course of events and an objective analysis of lockdown policy based on a serious engagement with the available literature on the subject. There are many aspects to the pandemic and lockdown, and it would be impossible to cover everything in a single article. However, we believe that this document offers a solid foundation for building a mass movement against lockdown and for a socialist alternative to this capitalist dystopia we are living under.

To briefly summarise the main points of this document:

1. The SARS-COV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic in the UK was real and killed around 43,000 between March and June 2020.

2. The concept of “lockdown” as an unprecedented pandemic response originated from China's over-reaction to the virus, which was endorsed by the World Heath Organisation (WHO) and subsequently copied by most Western governments.

3. Boris Johnson and the Conservative Government are being dictated by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a technocratic group funded by big corporate interests (tech, finance, pharma) who have effectively carried out a soft-coup.

4. SAGE have used mass fear and psychologically subversive “nudge” messaging to convince the population that the virus is deadly and can only be contained using lockdown, masks and social distancing. This fear has led to mass hysteria within the general population.

5. Whilst lockdown measures may slow the spread of the virus or “cases”, multiple studies show no evidence that lockdown, or the severity of lockdown policy, reduces deaths. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence as to the huge negative consequences lockdown has on the population and in particular the working class and most vulnerable in society.

6. The pandemic is fundamentally over, with the virus now endemic in a less acute form compared with the pandemic in spring 2020. The so-called “second wave” of covid is driven by a combination of an endemic virus and bad science: treating asymptomatic people who test positive as “covid cases”, misdiagnosis via inaccurate PCR tests generating false positive results, misdiagnosis through treating all respiratory conditions and "covid-like" symptoms as covid, and mass manipulation of the statistics being presented to the public, for example where “covid deaths” are actually deaths for any underlying reason but where the deceased tested positive on a PCR test within the last 28 days.

7. The NHS is under pressure this winter, as it has been every previous winter for around a decade. This is due to decades of government cuts, under-staffing and privatisation. Staff shortages are more acute because of the policy for staff to isolate for a period of time after testing positive on a PCR test.

8. Whilst the pandemic was a natural occurrence, a number of big corporations and sectors (tech, finance, pharma) all have a common interest in maintaining the false notion that the pandemic is still ongoing, and thus the false conclusion that lockdown policy must continue. For example, Big Pharma have a clear interest in promoting their new mRNA based vaccines as the solution to the pandemic. These vaccines have not adequately been proven safe or effective, and many concerns remain in the medical community.

9. The lockdown measures, loss of civil rights, the de facto shutdown of civil society and the authoritarian enforcement of these measures by the state as the “new normal” constitutes a new development in the form of the capitalist state, away from liberalism and towards what we call covid-fascism.

10. The pandemic and lockdown measures, whether deliberate or not, have played a “useful” role for the state in masking economic crisis. Unemployment, wage reductions and cuts in social spending can all be blamed on “the virus” whilst big corporations in the key sectors make record profits.

11. As we leave winter and enter spring in 2021, "covid deaths" will tail off as a result of passing through the season of respiratory viruses, not due to the effect of lockdown. Still, measures will be temporarily relaxed as a result of this. However, as long as the same diagnostic tools continue to be used to detect covid, another "covid wave" will appear after Summer, and so the same lockdown measures will be used once again. In theory this dynamic could be kept up indefinitely, becoming a way of life, along with semi-permanent mask wearing and social distancing.

More at link.

[stickdog99]

That's pretty much my take.

I would add that that the governmental (non)response to COVID-19, at least in the USA, is very telling. Every response I would encourage first and foremost (free universal healthcare, free COVID-19 testing, free voluntary quarantine facilities, paid self-quarantine leave, free nutritional support and food delivery for the most vulnerable, the institution of surge facilities at roving mobile hospitals ready to move wherever they are deemed necessary, and especially government sponsored double-blind studies on the specificity and selectivity of various COVID-19 tests and the efficacy of various masks, social distancing, and social contact tracing protocols) is still completely (or at least almost completely) missing or lacking a full 10 months into this pandemic.

Finally, hedge fund investors clearly want to use our overreaction to COVID-19 to get everything at low, low prices.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Since December we have had multiple clusters of virus as a result of outbreaks from people in quarantine. Infection control has failed and people working in quarantine have taken the virus into the community. In every case in NSW and Vic lockdowns to varying degrees followed and as a result the spread of the virus has slowed or stopped. No deaths have been recorded for ages and none from these outbreaks.

Why do you guys and the people who keep writing this stuff keep ignoring this when youse say there is no evidence lockdowns work to stop the spread of the virus or stop deaths? They clearly do.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Your commentary misses the point entirely. 133 pages in we're repeating refrains.

In an attempt to put this in simplest terms possible:

- "Infection control" is a wholly overstated phrase for this. There is this continued conflation between "cases" and actual, measurable symptoms. Most who test positive are asymptomatic, largely due to faulty PCR tests and/or cycle thresholds that are set too high. This has been addressed here before numerous times.
- outside of the outliers (the risk groups), for all others -- the majority of the global population -- this "infection" is no more severe than a standard flu, on average;
- death tallies for COVID have been grossly manipulated;
- the principle point here is that LOCKDOWNS DO NOT DECREASE COVID-specific DEATH COUNTS. To the contrary, they have INCREASED DEATH and LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD unrelated to COVID, UNNECESSARILY.

In short, the actions taken are nowhere near commensurate with the actual risk.

At this phase of this virus, if you weren't for lockdowns during prior flu seasons -- and NO ONE HERE advocated for lockdowns prior to 2020 -- then anyone clamoring for lockdowns now is falling prey to propaganda. Is it so surprising that lies are being told?

Again: drawing from currently available information, the virus was markedly more serious than the average flu during the earlier months of 2020. But we've been relatively FLAT for months now (once the raw figures are analyzed cleanly, excluding the manipulation of figures.)

Re-read points 5 and 6 -- the source link cites many sources that you can further analyze.

5. Whilst lockdown measures may slow the spread of the virus or “cases”, multiple studies show no evidence that lockdown, or the severity of lockdown policy, reduces deaths. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence as to the huge negative consequences lockdown has on the population and in particular the working class and most vulnerable in society.

6. The pandemic is fundamentally over, with the virus now endemic in a less acute form compared with the pandemic in spring 2020. The so-called “second wave” of covid is driven by a combination of an endemic virus and bad science: treating asymptomatic people who test positive as “covid cases”, misdiagnosis via inaccurate PCR tests generating false positive results, misdiagnosis through treating all respiratory conditions and "covid-like" symptoms as covid, and mass manipulation of the statistics being presented to the public, for example where “covid deaths” are actually deaths for any underlying reason but where the deceased tested positive on a PCR test within the last 28 days.

I've no interest in re-hashing prior talking points on this (which is what I'm doing right now). You are entitled to disagree, but at least frame my argument correctly when you attempt to counter.

[DrEvil]

Can you explain the difference in outcomes between Sweden and the other Nordic countries?

[mentalgongfu2]

.

Your commentary misses the point entirely. 133 pages in we're repeating refrains.

In an attempt to put this in simplest terms possible:

- "Infection control" is a wholly overstated phrase for this. There is this continued conflation between "cases" and actual, measurable symptoms. Most who test positive are asymptomatic, largely due to faulty PCR tests and/or cycle thresholds that are set too high. This has been addressed here before numerous times.
- outside of the outliers (the risk groups), for all others -- the majority of the global population -- this "infection" is no more severe than a standard flu, on average;
- death tallies for COVID have been grossly manipulated;
- the principle point here is that LOCKDOWNS DO NOT DECREASE COVID-specific DEATH COUNTS. To the contrary, they have INCREASED DEATH and LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD unrelated to COVID, UNNECESSARILY.

In short, the actions taken are nowhere near commensurate with the actual risk.

At this phase of this virus, if you weren't for lockdowns during prior flu seasons -- and NO ONE HERE advocated for lockdowns prior to 2020 -- then anyone clamoring for lockdowns now is falling prey to propaganda. Is it so surprising that lies are being told?

Again: drawing from currently available information, the virus was markedly more serious than the average flu during the earlier months of 2020. But we've been relatively FLAT for months now (once the raw figures are analyzed cleanly, excluding the manipulation of figures.)

Re-read points 5 and 6 -- the source link cites many sources that you can further analyze.

5. Whilst lockdown measures may slow the spread of the virus or “cases”, multiple studies show no evidence that lockdown, or the severity of lockdown policy, reduces deaths. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence as to the huge negative consequences lockdown has on the population and in particular the working class and most vulnerable in society.

6. The pandemic is fundamentally over, with the virus now endemic in a less acute form compared with the pandemic in spring 2020. The so-called “second wave” of covid is driven by a combination of an endemic virus and bad science: treating asymptomatic people who test positive as “covid cases”, misdiagnosis via inaccurate PCR tests generating false positive results, misdiagnosis through treating all respiratory conditions and "covid-like" symptoms as covid, and mass manipulation of the statistics being presented to the public, for example where “covid deaths” are actually deaths for any underlying reason but where the deceased tested positive on a PCR test within the last 28 days.

I've no interest in re-hashing prior talking points on this (which is what I'm doing right now). You are entitled to disagree, but at least frame my argument correctly when you attempt to counter.

Are we entitled to disagree? Because I've read many of your links, given my opinion on cites, and watched you bow out multiple times only to come back with the same refrain, as you say.

Do you dispute that asymptomatic cases are contagious?

If death counts are exaggerated because of underlying conditions, and you think death from lockdowns are bigger, how do you reconcile underlying conditions that cause death due to lockdown?

You are creating a logic trap, and using feigned ignorance of how medical data is reported to support it. Virtually every medical death recorded anywhere for any reason has underlying conditions.

Actually, let me back up. Of deaths related to the seasonal flu, how many have underlying or co-occuring conditons ?
How many are listed on a death certificate as "Cause of death=flu"

Pull that data, and maybe you have a data point for comparison. Instead you are pulling isolated stats and asserting without backup that lockdowns are the bigger problem.

I don't disagree that the US half ass lockdown is wrong, not for the reasons you cite but because its a half measure that is the worst of both worlds. Enough lockdown to kill many businesses but too loose to actually prevent disease spread. You cant close bars but open schools and expect to have an impact, as if the population groups don't mingle.

[mentalgongfu2]

Fuck me sideways. Upon re-reading, I'm tempted to do some editing, but let me avoid that and just drill down on one single thing so we can perhaps avoid some amount of incoming distraction.

Of deaths related to the seasonal flu, how many have underlying or co-occuring conditons ?
How many are listed on a death certificate as "Cause of death=flu"
What is the "FLU-SPECIFIC death count in a normal year?
We might also add, how many people are tested for the Flu?
How many tested for the flu are positive vs. negative?
Is it possible to have the flu and be asymptomatic? If so, what is transmissibility and for how long?

All of your arguments are focused on the assertion that the data is wrong, manipulated, not comparable, etc.
Let's get some comparable baseline, from the before time.
Without opinion, just something that uses the exact same criteria upon which you are judging the current situation.
If such has been included in the many opinion pieces and links already posted, let's just siphon that out from the conclusions and look at that data alone for easy comparison.

We're not dummies here. We want to find truth, right?
Let's pick a few basic questions and answers about the seasonal flu, and put them out here.
Then we can look at some data and see how it compares.
Surely we have the data on COVID by this point. Folks keep arguing it's equivalent to the flu.
Let's look at the data ourselves since some don't believe medical practitioners have done it properly.

[Belligerent Savant]

.


Rather than respond further to the last few talking points, allow me to offer a general note: the last thing I'd want to do is inspire infighting amongst ourselves, broadly (not just here in RI), over this topic.

Clearly, this has been, and will continue to be, a polarizing/charged topic. It's also become deeply politicized -- which is most unfortunate -- as a significant portion of the population will lean towards certain views based at least in part on what their political leanings may be.

Despite whatever disagreements we may have on this topic, we're all largely aiming for the same thing: minimizing harm to those we care about, to ourselves, and to the populace at large (except for those oligarchs: hang them in public squares! -- partial jest).

Hopefully we'll be in a better place, collectively, with respect to this crisis as we near the mid-year mark.

My cynical lens foretells otherwise, however.
(hopefully I'll be proven wrong)

[Harvey]

.


Rather than respond further to the last few talking points, allow me to offer a general note: the last thing I'd want to do is inspire infighting amongst ourselves, broadly (not just here in RI), over this topic.

Clearly, this has been, and will continue to be, a polarizing/charged topic. It's also become deeply politicized -- which is most unfortunate -- as a significant portion on the population will lean towards certain views based at least in part on what their political leanings may be.

Despite whatever disagreements we may have on this topic, we're all largely aiming for the same thing: minimizing harm to those we care about, to ourselves, and to the populace at large (except for those oligarchs: hang them in public squares! -- partial jest).

Hopefully we'll be in a better place, collectively, with respect to this crisis as we near the mid-year mark.

My cynical lens foretells otherwise, however.
(hopefully I'll be proven wrong)

Hopefully. It is entirely possible. It is.

[JackRiddler]

Can you explain the difference in outcomes between Sweden and the other Nordic countries?

Can you explain the difference in outcomes between Sweden and the rather more robust sampling of all western European countries? Oh, right, it's somewhere in the middle.

The biggest share of deaths from Covid in all countries has been at old-age homes, where in the U.S. at least practices have been downright criminal, and the highest rates have been at other confinement institutions. Sweden fucked up with the senior homes and fucked up its treatment of refugee camps. Not unlike the many other countries that display comparable or worse numbers than Sweden, even though they implemented strict forced-lockdown measures.

I think 5 and 6 on the list are a bit overstated but 11 is a lock. Could be wrong, not an epidemiologist or doctor, read on strictly at your own risk... I'm also more optimistic than most and believe some version of the idea that lockdown was exaggerated and counter-productive will come to be the prevailing view. I am agnostic on claims about China. Sure looks like they had the right response. On the face of it, contact tracing and quarantine of the known symptomatic persons and those whom they could have infected seems to me to be a lot more logically compelling than any other measure. There's plenty of obvious evidence that many people have been unhinged from the start (most obvious: the treatment of surfaces and packaging), and "people" includes a lot of PTB.

[DrEvil]

The best comparison for Sweden is not continental Europe, but its neighbors with similar demographics, economies, political systems and healthcare systems, and comparing them the one big difference is Sweden's lackadaisical response. They were going for herd immunity and failed.

Sweden has passed 10000 deaths, compared to second place Denmark with about 1700 deaths (3400 adjusted for population size). Norway and Finland, probably the two countries most similar to Sweden, are at just over 500 and 600 respectively (1000 and 1200 adjusted).

Lockdowns aren't the only solution, but it clearly made a difference, and the reason is, to me at least, obvious: it's really hard to protect the most vulnerable if the rest of society just let it rip.