Discombobulated

[flowerbug]

... It is called stay home when you are sick or go to the hospital, not GO TO JAIL.

well obviously you've been on vacation the whole time this thing has been going on because it is the fact that many people are sick without knowing it.

 

[Gardening with Rabbits]

Well, I apologize for shouting. It is all day and everyday vaccines and more vaccines. I see Australia and what is going on and it does not look like fun at all.

 

[Gardening with Rabbits]

well obviously you've been on vacation the whole time this thing has been going on because it is the fact that many people are sick without knowing it.

well obviously you've been on vacation the whole time this thing has been going on because it is the fact that many people are sick without knowing it.

No, covid hit close to me, not on vacation from it at all and they sure knew they were sick, but the person that gave it to them thought he had an allergy and he had just been vaccinated. Weird too, last year his wife got it, she is a nurse, but he did not get it, so this year he decided to get vaccinated but she is not going to get the vaccine and get fired. He got vaccinated, got sick, got others sick and he went to the hospital. Lived right in the house with his wife the year before and did not get it. None of the unvaccinated went to the hospital that got it, only the vaccinated man.

 

[heirloomgal]

The way I look at this is that the individual's rights end when they interfere with the rights of others and the community at large. That's not an easy boundary to define. How we define that boundary determines what kind of civilization we have. Does the individual have the right to poison the community food supply? Several years ago someone actually argued that taking away his right to poison the food supply was equivalent to taking away all his liberty. I'm not sure he quite understands Ben Franklin's quote, at last not the way I do.

What constitutes poisoning the community food supply, you can get a lot of different opinions on that part. Can the community regulate how I dump my sewage into the community water supply. How much detail can the community go into as to how I have to treat it? How often does it need to be tested, if at all? And a basic question for individuals, do they consider dumping raw sewage in the public water supply to be a bad thing? If you consider dumping raw sewage in the water supply to be a bad thing how much are you willing to pay in taxes to get it treated. Or is dumping it below your water intake good enough.

You may think I'm using a gross example to make the point. With some of the comments I've heard about counties regulating septic systems I consider this a real world example. When you get into the details these boundaries aren't always easy. And how they are presented can make a huge difference.

The specific case in point, Covid. How much right does the community have to limit or reduce the spread of something that is killing community members, hospitalizing people to the point it stresses the public health system, and sometimes leaves people permanently disabled? Some people seem to feel that Covid is not doing any of these things or that these methods aren't effective. Forcing people to wear a rag over their face or getting a vaccination does interfere with individual rights. For many different reasons this is a very controversial subject.

I think this is a really great example @Ridgerunner within the context of this topic. If a person empties dangerous waste into a drinking water supply or onto the food supply, to me, that doesn't constitute possible harm, that constitutes actual harm, and measurable harm with biological samples testing. For me, it becomes a question of certainty versus possibility, which is completely absent in the present covid measures.

I have not gotten covid, and I may or may not. Does owning a septic system, given the nature of associated disposal issues, make the owner an automatic agent of harm because they might dispose of their waste improperly? Some people dispose of their waste safely and properly. Should owners of septic systems/holding tanks suffer punitive measures because - just by having a septic system - they pose risk to the safety of other people? Actual harm, and risk is separate. Owners of such waste management systems will always pose a risk, it's a practical impossibility to eliminate the reality that someone might choose to dispose of their waste improperly. Much like energy transport - there will always be risks. Should we forbid it's transport; some would like to because they dislike the associated risk. (Oil spills, contamination issues, Lac Megantic etc) Would it cause a different, and indeed more certain harm, to deny people that same dangerously transported energy?

So my concerns surround the question and process of eliminating certain risks; is it feasible, reasonable or even possible. I think freedom has built in risks and there is no getting away from it. Freedom of speech, to bear arms, and so on, disappeared here under the auspices that they pose 'a risk to someone else'. The sovereignty of countries itself is a risk, if all countries are attached to the same globe. Even without the presence of massive weaponry, so long as air and water and wind are mobile, there is risk of one to harm another. But then the question arises, do you eliminate sovereignty to eliminate this risk. How far does one go in eliminating risk, befre eliminating the risk is harmful? It becomes a complicated matter to sort through on both macro and micro levels.

As far as hospitalizations and associated data like that goes, I refrain from concluding about it, especially in Canada. Mostly because the media has been caught presenting false information so many times, as independent journalists continue to reveal. It's difficult to know the truth to falsehood ratio. Then there is all the tremendous censorship of nurses & doctors here, like Patrick Philips and many others who are forbidden from adding their voice to the discussion because they don't follow the scripted government narrative. And censorship of people trying to tell their stories of being vaccinated and harmed. There has been a concerted effort to create a frenzy of panic. We have such federally controlled media here that many of us jokingly call CBC the 'Ministry of Propaganda', and many have started calling the country 'Chinada'.

 

[heirloomgal]

My mother's dad died in 1918 of they say TB, i just wonder if Spanish Flu was part of it. Her sister had smallpox at 3 months and lived. My mother was exposed to all that and never got it. Her grandmother who raised her and adopted her died when my mother was 15 of TB from caring for her son, my grandfather. My mother got mumps when my brother did when I was about 9 and I did not get it from them living in the same house. My mother lived until 50 before catching mumps. My brother and I got the 3 day measles when we were young and my parents did not catch it so they had it when younger. My brother got chickenpox from somebody at work when he was about 30 and in the same house as my mother and she did not get it, so she had it when she was younger. My kids and I got chickenpox when I was 60 and got it from DH when he got shingles caught from live virus given to others at the cancer center. I was told, well not told, my paperwork was THROWN at me from a jackass doctor who said GET VACCINATED, YOU ARE NOT RUBELLA IMMUNE. Well SO WHAT. People die of a lot of things. I flew in an airplane once to Florida. Decided it was about the most stupid thing I ever did and was looking for bus tickets or buy a used car home. Even thought of buying land in Florida. I finally got on that plane home, but I never will fly again. My choice to not die that way. People in a plane might fall on me walking down the street or in my car, or fall on me out in the garden or my house, and I cannot stop air traffic over my house. They say it is safe, but there is a chance it could fall on some town. People need to calm down before we live like scared slaves in fear of everything and can't cross the street without papers.

Here is a little more about the Scarlet Fever...the pathogen that causes it is still around. It has never been eliminated. It no longer infect numbers of people as it once did not because of vaccination - there isn't a vaccine for Scarlet Fever. The reason it is so rare is that people have improved their standard of living. Hygiene is better, and nutrition is MUCH better. We've learned a great deal about increasing our immune function. My son contracted it, but none of us got it - me, DH or DD. He went to school with it, because we didn't know he had it. And it can be very serious. But nobody he was exposed to got it. My son got it because he was suffering from a health crisis that severely compromised his immunity. After getting away from mainstream allopathic medicine, we restored his health entirely and now he's doing great. In a way he didn't get Scarlet Fever because of Scarlet Fever, he got it because of an irregularity in his immune function.

I agree with you. Life itself is a risk. The human immune system is the most powerful form of 'vaccination' in the world, if we support it.

 

[heirloomgal]

Yeah, isolate the SICK. NOT THE UNVACCINATED. It is called stay home when you are sick or go to the hospital, not GO TO JAIL. Nurses not vaccinated, oh fire them. Now bring in the national guard, GET THIS - Reserve and National Guard units are expected to be fully vaccinated by June 30, 2022. SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THEY FIRE NURSES BECAUSE OF NO VACCINE AND BRING IN THE GUARDS WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED????? Because the whole world HAS GONE NUTS.

When I went to my last freedom rally, a man shouted from a car, 'where are you going to go if you get sick!' One man from our group yelled back, 'To bed!' This is another interesting point, firing loads of medical staff during a health crisis? The mother who was arrested here in from of her 3 kids - for taking them to a playgym without a vaccine passport - was arrested by law enforcement, who themselves were not expected to be vaccinated. The hypocrisy is jaw dropping.

 

[digitS']

Yes, evaluating risk is important. I've mentioned polio a number of times. "Most people who get infected with poliovirus (about 72 out of 100) will not have any visible symptoms."

CDC

And yet, measures were needed and taken to deal with the periodic epidemics.

 

[heirloomgal]

Been writing for awhile a piece on covid. Thought I'd share it here.

I think, maybe, one of the constructive ways that people with various perspectives can look at the present situation is to think deeply, instead of specifically. When they don't agree on what constitutes reliable evidence the dialogue inevitably fails, because of the ensuing conflict based on source & fact credibility. But, I think if you can transcend covid specific data that either side might view as politicised or fraudulent, the underlying principles can be a meeting place.

Here's a take on covid with no covid statistics, or covid data.. Thanksgiving 2019 I was having a pre - dinner walk with my 1 year old dog Tucker. I was enjoying the pretty fall decorations and quaint homes. On my way back, in my peripheral vision, I sensed a pair of eyes on me. Instinctually I scanned, and rescanned, eventually seeing the silhouette of a very large dog standing on the porch of a house I was walking past. At first I thought it might be a statue because it was so strangely still. Within seconds though he was moving like an apparition toward us, down the steps and onto the street, his footfalls and presence utterly soundless. I remember distinctly the process my mind went through at that moment -what's happening-is something bad happening-no nothing bad is happening-yes this is bad-no it isn't, yes, no. My mind's quest for hope and my guttural hunch started dueling. The next thing I knew my dog and I were both brought down, and what had been a deafening silence turned into the most incredible soundtrack of fury I'd ever heard in my life. I grew up watching Mutual of Omaha's 'Wild Kingdom', and this was totally different than even the lion episodes. Much of what happened after this point is a fuzzy jumble. I remember a rotating awareness of things in what felt like a dream state - I need to save my dog - I can't see my dog- this is the hugest dog I have ever seen - very white teeth - start strangling the dog - strangling isn't working. The Silver Bullet sound reel, and the feel of his shaggy hair in my fingers, as I tightened them around his neck, stand out most today. I am a pescatarian, afterall.

I did not know at the time that I was screaming, but apparently I was. This alerted the owners to the fact that their dog had escaped it's chain link enclosure. Needless to say, I'm still here, and so is my dog, and neither of us is permanently disfigured. But it has cost me in money, and in other ways related to the life my family and I previously enjoyed with our dog. My dog will never be the same again. My main response to this experience was to try to figure out what happened. I haven't had a dog in decades. Is this a reality I might face again? I committed to learning about all things dog related (and prevention), particularly when it became clear to me this may not be an isolated event. My dog was attacked, tragically, two more times by off leash dogs within the year, and we had even more close calls. My parents also within that year, in their 80's, had another elderly couple over to their home and the same thing happened while entertaining in their backyard. Their lady friend was taken down along with her small dog, by a retriever that appeared out of nowhere, and disappeared just as suddenly. Her dog didn't fare as well as mine, but the lady was ultimately okay though she was mauled.

I hired a dog training expert in my area, spoke with by-law officers for animal control. Technically, you cannot protect yourself from a dog here, because you cannot carry weapons of any kind. You must instead call 911 and get law enforcement to help. (This brings into question for me gov. concern for my safety - but that's a separate issue.) I started piecing together a picture of what I was dealing with. Let me preface what I'm about to share, by saying that I love my dog, and I love dogs (and animals) in general. I think a dog is one of the finest companions that mankind has ever known. My dog is a part of my family. But when you start looking into it, Great White sharks look like Bambi compared to the damage dogs put on humans the world over. Aside from venomous snakes and mosquitoes, dogs kill more humans than any other animal on earth. 35,000 a year - that we know of. In the US, 4.5 million people a year are attacked by dogs. Almost 1000 people a day go into an ER to get treatment for dog attack injuries. The fatalities are small, relatively speaking, but they are notable. It's definitely a bad way to go. Adding to this, there has apparently also been a 300% increase in dog attacks since 2020.

This is something to consider in light of the time in which we're living, and the discussion about risks people's choices pose to other people. The subject descends into all aspects of our lives, from the beverages we drink to the pets people choose. My street alone has 2 'red zone' dogs, one which once escaped. Does the law have a right to confiscate/terminate their dogs because they might escape and harm me or someone else? It would make me feel better for sure, but would it be right? Many dogs qualify as potential safety risks, especially to the people who don't feed them. The question then becomes what might taking punitive action against anyone doing or having something that could be a risk lead to? How would automobiles fit into this? Or alcohol? I'm not attempting to present any particular point of view here, but do a kind of surgical exploration of a complex matter. Is it wise to enact punitive measures against someone based on what they might do or what might happen? Up until now, legal punishment could not be pre-emptive. You could not in the context of law punish someone for what they haven't done yet, or what they might do. A speedometer gauge could then be cause for punitive measures; a person might speed or drive irresponsibly and might harm or kill someone while doing that. Approximately
5, 419, 000 car crashes every year. Innumerable people have been killed by reckless drivers, or DUI drivers in the last half century. Any number of things fall under the umbrella of potential risks people pose to one another.

Conceivably, I could get covid. If I were to get it, I might inadvertently pass it on. But I also might not. I may never get it. Millions of people have not contracted covid, many more than those that have gotten it. There is no way to predict outcomes such as this; surely recommended precautions count for something, as they come highly enforced. That's two layers of only possibility. (Most interestingly, and importantly, you can still catch covid, still pass it on, having been vaccinated.) If we start down the road of penalizing people for what they might do, the harm they might cause, it opens up a whole world of legal complexities. There would basically be no limit to enacting punitive measures on anyone for any reason, because so long as one possesses a body that is capable of holding a weapon, has a car, a dog, a chainsaw, a hammer, septic system etc. All fall under the umbrella of possible threat. It is notable too that historically in the era of eugenics, forced sterilizations was once an acceptable means of pre-emptively protecting society. The offspring of an 'undesirable person' was considered a significant and unreasonable risk to the safety of the 'public good' as a book espousing the topic once described it.

Then there is the question of risk in the other direction. Even putting aside reports of vaccine injuries and deaths, because that would inevitably lead again in the direction of debate about source reliability, we know a few things about medical protocols in general. That there isn't one that is safe for everyone - not even antibiotics, which has saved incalculable lives. For some people, antibiotics are fatal. Then there are antibiotic resistant pathogens - 750, 000 fatalities worldwide/year & rising - having evolved as a result of the lifesaving antibiotics themselves. Taking antibiotics, then, even poses risks to others in the long term. Clearly, long term effects are worth considering rather seriously. There are many allopathic tools that can go either way. Some are saved by surgery, some die during it. What is safe for one, is not safe for another, even things as seemingly benign as milk, eggs, fish and aspirin - all in the top 5 of anaphylactic triggers.

Might losing freedoms - any of them - be a greater risk than keeping them and the costs that come with them? Even when the cost might be lives? The 2nd amendment comes to mind for example. So long as people have guns, they will be used by people to harm other people. It's inevitable. The amount of lives saved by firearms must be calculated in as well, though not so easy to provide data on. The heart of the covid issue is the quest for perfect solutions in an imperfect world, without wanting any trade offs. Sometimes, solutions are worse than the problems they are supposed to solve. Gun laws are often debated after a school shooting, but drowning accounts for many more fatalities in kids (about 4,000 vs. 54 per year). Should pools and beaches be banned? Dr. Thomas Sowell once said that 'the mark of maturity is being able to weigh one thing against another, in an imperfect world'. In the case of DDT, after Rachel Carson's infamous book, countries around the world ceased to employ it, even those that had been using it in relatively small amounts. Ending the use of DDT may have been a good thing, it may have been a bad thing - that isn't the question or answer. The fact is it was the means by which malaria was being controlled in Africa and ending the use of DDT ultimately resulted in the death of millions of people. The death toll has been so high, that in 2006 the WHO (no matter what you think of them) began recommending the use of DDT once again for use in people's homes. Even more, the WHO now states that DDT never posed any risk to human health, or the environment. That kind of switch up gives one pause, considering the lives that were and are at stake. And brings to mind the idea of powerful institutions imposing solutions on people that seem good & righteous, but may be incorrect, or dangerous. Institutions that pay no price for being wrong. Solutions that 'feel good' may have consequences that don't.

For anyone interested in the topic of 'dangerous safety' here 's an interesting article written in 2002.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2002-08-02-0208010717-story.html

 

[digitS']

How much is the risk of dying on a commercial airline flight?

Should we as passengers be concerned about it? I suppose so. Certainly, we have and need regulatory agencies to control this industry.

The US transportation office reports that that Domestic flights alone, carried more than 811 million passengers in 2019. DOT Wikipedia shows 10 fatalities that year on commercial airlines link .

 

[heirloomgal]

Yes, evaluating risk is important. I've mentioned polio a number of times. "Most people who get infected with poliovirus (about 72 out of 100) will not have any visible symptoms."

CDC

And yet, measures were needed and taken to deal with the periodic epidemics.

It is a topic I'd prefer not to descend to deeply into into, but not all people believe vaccines effectively ended epidemics. Allopathic medicine, as a whole, has a dark history. There is much information out there to suggest it's possible. One of my actual neighbours died, long before covid, of the shingles vaccine. And that was confirmed by the physician himself. Many people have contracted vaccine sourced pathogens throughout history.

This is a piece from ABC Health, though (disclaimer!) I remain highly skeptical of all information contained in the mainstream media such as this - but the info says they have to vaccinate against the polio vaccine.

LONDON -- Four African countries have reported new cases of polio linked to the oral vaccine, as global health numbers show there are now more children being paralyzed by viruses originating in vaccines than in the wild.

In a report late last week, the World Health Organization and partners noted nine new polio cases caused by the vaccine in Nigeria, Congo, Central African Republic and Angola. Seven countries elsewhere in Africa have similar outbreaks and cases have been reported in Asia. Of the two countries where polio remains endemic, Afghanistan and Pakistan, vaccine-linked cases have been identified in Pakistan.