Coronavirus Mega-Thread.

[facere arbitrium]

5 hours ago, FrankVitali said:

 

[Ergo Storm]

7 hours ago, Shining-one said:

Millenium Bug? No, not as much panic as today but the pattern was the same.

"For its January 18, 1999 issue, Time magazine rang in the year with the words “The End of the World!?!” on its cover. Other publications would issue “Y2K Checklists,” which advised people to have medicine, a few day’s cash and up-to-date paper records of all financial transactions. Some families even went as far as setting up emergency bunkers in their basements to ride out the feared impending apocalypse."

The sign below was from 1999. 

See the similarity?

 

I do wonder if all this has been planned over the very long term, maybe even by successive generations of rulers, and they were just waiting for the right moment or the right opportunity to come along. 

 

In this theory, everything is happening reactively.  The elites will be behind some things, but not most of it.  They are simply using their positions of power and influence to react.

 

They maybe thought about shutting societies down in 1999.  One way it could have gone is that in, say, the spring of 1999, they could have issued panic measures, telling everybody that all technology will suddenly shut down at 00:00 on 1st. January 2000.  They thought about it, maybe there were conferences held at the time to do with Y2K contingency planning and so forth as a way of readying the various professional helping-hands and other useful idiots, but in the end they decided not to go ahead.  Perhaps one reason for deciding against it was that they realised that the internet and worldwide web could be useful to them as a means of social indoctrination and control.

 

Then 9/11 happened.  There's a debate about who or what was behind that inhumane outrage, but we see the same techniques.  In response to the attacks on that day, the United States prosecuted senseless wars and imposed a domestic policing and surveillance regime on its own citizens that was unprecedented in history.

 

Then fast forward to the various bird flu panics of the 2000s, which were mainly confined to east Asia.  Maybe they thought that could be the moment, but then they decided against it for whatever reason.

 

Perhaps swine flu in 2009 was the test run.  They purposefully kept it all limited in scope, but did a trial run of the propaganda.  

 

Then they waited for their next opportunity - and here we are.

 

I think the virus is genuine and they have taken their chance.  Remember that they have had plenty of practice.  There will be various reasons for it and different motives, some conflicting.  Is there an overriding motive and agenda, a global criminal mind so to speak?  I think there is, but I don't believe it is one single individual or even a small committee of individuals.  I believe we are up against something more amorphous and dangerous: a collective mindset, and its influence reaches down into our daily lives and its agents walk among us.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Ergo Storm

[alexa]

9 hours ago, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

I understand that 33 and 666 are numbers considered important to the cabal but 44 is new to me.

 

Psalm 44 

 

5 Through you we push back our enemies;
    through your name we trample our foes.
6 I put no trust in my bow,
    my sword does not bring me victory;
7 but you give us victory over our enemies,
    you put our adversaries to shame.
8 In God we make our boast all day long,
    and we will praise your name forever.

 

[alexa]

4 hours ago, Macnamara said:

Yes 2021 is shaping up to be an anus horribilis

 

 

 

[alexa]

EU jabs climbdown:  Plans to introduce controls on Northern Ireland border to stop vaccine entering the UK

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9203545/EU-withdraws-plans-vaccine-controls-Northern-Ireland-border-stop-jabs-entering-UK.html

 

 

[Ergo Storm]

10 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

 

 

 

"One has had a terrible year.  One's castle burned down.  One's son got divorced.  One's popularity went through the floor.  Philip made the usual gaffs.  And to top it all orrrrff, I've had my arse prodded and probed.  It's been a literal annus horribilis."

 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Ergo Storm

[alexa]

Ministers warn 'going on holiday is illegal' in new ad campaign to halt foreign travel 

Under lockdown rules in place since the start of the month 'going on a foreign holiday is not a valid reason to leave home,' one official said, adding that it 'increases the risk of spreading the virus.

Daily Fail

[alexa]

9 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

"One has had a terrible year.  One's castle burned down.  One's son got divorced.  One's popularity went through the floor.  Philip made the usual gaffs.  And to top it all orrrrff, I've had my arse prodded and probed.  It's been a literal annus horribilis."

 

These Royals are used to this by Groom of the stool

[Ergo Storm]

6 minutes ago, alexa said:

Ministers warn 'going on holiday is illegal' in new ad campaign to halt foreign travel 

Under lockdown rules in place since the start of the month 'going on a foreign holiday is not a valid reason to leave home,' one official said, adding that it 'increases the risk of spreading the virus.

Daily Fail

 

It's like living in a science fiction film.  But one reason they can now get away with this is that our civil liberties have been eroded slowly and gradually over a very long time with little opposition.  This is not a cliff edge, it is just the cumulation of long trends that people have accepted, even supported, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, much of it with only a tenuous justification.

 

Examples that come to mind off-hand:

 

-Racially-motivated public order offences, introduced during the 1980s.

-Use of nationalised police during the 1984/85 Miners' Strike.

-Paramilitarisation of the police.

-Intrusive and Kafkaesque anti-money laundering laws.

-The attempt to introduce compulsory ID cards, now brought in by the backdoor with photocard driving licences, which were made compulsory with little or no opposition.

- Hate speech laws introduced by the Blair government.

- Intrusive employment laws that micro-manage employer-employee relations.

- Anti-discrimination laws.

- Restrictions on demonstrations and protests generally, and in specific sensitive areas like Westminster.

[Ergo Storm]

 

[Ergo Storm]

 

[Ergo Storm]

 

[Ergo Storm]

 

[alexa]

Coronation Street actress Maureen Lipman's partner of 13 years Guido Castro dies after a short Covid-related illness aged 84

Dame Maureen, 74, said Mr Castro, 84, who was in a respite home and had a form of Parkinson's disease, tested positive days after receiving his vaccine jab.

 

 

[Ergo Storm]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/russia-real-sweden-one-place-europe-anything-goes/

 

Quote

 

Moscow locked down hard in the spring, requiring residents to download digital passes to leave their homes. The city’s sophisticated video-surveillance network was put in use to catch quarantine violators. Clips shared on social media showed police halting joggers mid-run and breaking up barbecues, while the palatial stations of the city’s Stalin-era metro system were all but empty. The Kremlin closed Russia’s borders: not only banning foreigners from entering but also Russians from leaving, apart from on essential travel. 

In June, however, President Vladimir Putin declared “victory” over the virus. Authorities lifted the lockdown in time for Russians to vote in a delayed referendum that changed the constitution to allow Mr Putin to extend his rule until 2036. 

Since then, the country has never looked back. Aside from masks in shops and on public transport – occasionally enforced by police, and encouraged by a recent video from the Moscow Metro showing a glamorous young couple dancing in a carriage in face-coverings and gloves – the streets resemble life pre-pandemic. 

The Kremlin has handed over decision-making on restrictions to regional authorities, while making clear that it expects the Russian economy to keep moving. (Moscow has asked employers to keep a third of their workforce at home and put high-school students into distance learning, while the region outside the capital has told over-65s to self isolate. The country’s health watchdog has suggested an 11pm curfew for businesses, which Moscow has ignored but Saint Petersburg is enforcing.)

 

 

[facere arbitrium]

26 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

It's like living in a science fiction film.  But one reason they can now get away with this is that our civil liberties have been eroded slowly and gradually over a very long time with little opposition.  This is not a cliff edge, it is just the cumulation of long trends that people have accepted, even supported, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, much of it with only a tenuous justification.

 

Examples that come to mind off-hand:

 

-Racially-motivated public order offences, introduced during the 1980s.

-Use of nationalised police during the 1984/85 Miners' Strike.

-Paramilitarisation of the police.

-Intrusive and Kafkaesque anti-money laundering laws.

-The attempt to introduce compulsory ID cards, now brought in by the backdoor with photocard driving licences, which were made compulsory with little or no opposition.

- Hate speech laws introduced by the Blair government.

- Intrusive employment laws that micro-manage employer-employee relations.

- Anti-discrimination laws.

- Restrictions on demonstrations and protests generally, and in specific sensitive areas like Westminster.

Speaking of erosion of civil liberties I've noticed the Daily Mail publishing a lot of articles over the years that seem to be directed at persuading the general public to request for Human Rights to be removed. They appear to use examples of the worst people who get protected by Human Rights to provoke a reaction from the public. I don't necessarily condone the actions of criminals that are protected by them and I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of the crimes. What I worry about is how removal of certain basic human rights might impact innocent people who are wrongly convicted or how changes in those laws might result in abuse of innocent citizens who would under the right circumstances be protected by them. It's rough territory.

[Ergo Storm]

1 minute ago, facere arbitrium said:

Speaking of erosion of civil liberties I've noticed the Daily Mail publishing a lot of articles over the years that seem to be directed at persuading the general public to request for Human Rights to be removed. They appear to use examples of the worst people who get protected by Human Rights to provoke a reaction from the public. I don't necessarily condone the actions of criminals that are protected by them and I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of the crimes. What I worry about is how removal of certain basic human rights might impact innocent people who are wrongly convicted or how changes in those laws might result in abuse of innocent citizens who would under the right circumstances be protected by them. It's rough territory.

 

This is an example of exactly what I mean.  There is a highly-contested saying in the law: Hard cases make bad law.  I think sometimes this adage is adaptable to situations covered by popular newspapers.  They take extreme or unpopular cases - 'hard cases' - and try to suggest that the law should generally be adapted to these, not appreciating how the same laws that bad people take advantage of are also necessary to protect the liberties of the average person.

[alexa]

David Icke in news again!

Anti-lockdown campaigners backed by Piers Corbyn and David Icke push for illegal 'Great Reopening' of shops and businesses despite Covid rules - as police threaten 'ultimate action' against flouters 

Great Reopening groups are proliferating on Telegram and its counterpart Gab - which is notorious as a haven for fanatics - with dozens of local groups across the UK.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196577/Anti-lockdown-campaigners-push-illegal-Great-Reopening-shops-businesses-TOMORROW.html

[facere arbitrium]

1 minute ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

This is an example of exactly what I mean.  There is a highly-contested saying in the law: Hard cases make bad law.  I think sometimes this adage is adaptable to situations covered by popular newspapers.  They take extreme or unpopular cases - 'hard cases' - and try to suggest that the law should generally be adapted to these, not appreciating how the same laws that bad people take advantage of are also necessary to protect the liberties of the average person.

Agree with you there man and appreciate the information. Seems to be a recurring pattern with that rag even with the Rona virus. Using the stories that fit their persuasive narrative and ignoring stories of people who've been harmed by vaccines or dying of other treatable diseases due to lock downs. Stories where people's lives have been devastated by circumstances that they don't really want anyone to think about. It's absolutely insane how even just discussing vaccines people have gotten to the point where all someone has to say is 'anti-vax' and it immediately ends further self-inquiry or debate on the subject. Willful ignorance.

I don't get my news from that rag but I do view it occasionally to get an idea of what public are being fed. I think a lot of people, but not all, take their news on face value and accept it as their own opinion.

[facere arbitrium]

8 minutes ago, alexa said:

David Icke in news again!

Anti-lockdown campaigners backed by Piers Corbyn and David Icke push for illegal 'Great Reopening' of shops and businesses despite Covid rules - as police threaten 'ultimate action' against flouters 

Great Reopening groups are proliferating on Telegram and its counterpart Gab - which is notorious as a haven for fanatics - with dozens of local groups across the UK.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196577/Anti-lockdown-campaigners-push-illegal-Great-Reopening-shops-businesses-TOMORROW.html

Their narratives are ridiculous and beyond a joke. It'd be funny in normal times but they're quite sick. There's no conspiracy in the fact they're trialing vaccines that have been rushed through development in a year when the process ordinarily takes 10 years.

That they're using new technologies in the vaccines that they have no long term data on. That the general public is mostly unaware they're participating in what is essentially an experiment, whilst being persuaded to use post marketing surveillance to gather the data they don't have on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines; Due to the short time they have been rushed out in.

All this is evident in their own literature on the government sites, the governments own actions and words during their public announcements and gets repeated in their own words by the doctors who support the rolling out of the vaccines themselves.

[facere arbitrium]

Just to add a point of balance, there may be vulnerable people about. The vaccine isn't necessarily going to stop them from getting or spreading the virus. If the great reopening is going ahead, vulnerable people should be supported and asked if they can be assisted with chores or shopping. They should also be made aware of being able to further protect themselves using Vitamin C, D and Zinc to enhance their immunity and lower inflammation. These are precautions that come with considerably less risk and good benefits. It's not unreasonable to assume we have a duty of care to one another especially if people are serious about taking self-responsibility. The last thing a compassionate self-responsible society would want to do is make their own people fearful. People need to know they're safe, supported and cared for. And most importantly they should know what they can do to help themselves and that there are people who will help them with what they need.

This along with a healthy diet, low stress, some light exercise and good sleep will be beneficial for everyone.

I wish the small business owners a successful re-opening and more than anything I hope nobody will come to any harm. It's important to be receptive if any issues arise and respond appropriately to protect one another.

Edited January 30, 2021 by facere arbitrium

[Ergo Storm]

 

[Ergo Storm]

1 hour ago, alexa said:

David Icke in news again!

Anti-lockdown campaigners backed by Piers Corbyn and David Icke push for illegal 'Great Reopening' of shops and businesses despite Covid rules - as police threaten 'ultimate action' against flouters 

Great Reopening groups are proliferating on Telegram and its counterpart Gab - which is notorious as a haven for fanatics - with dozens of local groups across the UK.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196577/Anti-lockdown-campaigners-push-illegal-Great-Reopening-shops-businesses-TOMORROW.html

 

That's an important article.  I've always known that the Daily Mail are scum, but even I'm slightly disconcerted that they are now contacting people's employers to grass on them.  That's really scummy and arguably amounts to harassment because posts to a Facebook group are not of public interest and NHS workers have a right to hold and express their private views.

 

Without wishing in any way to be disrespectful to the lady who owns the hairdressers, when she talks about how she is a 'fictitious character', she is revealing the weakness of the position she is in.  A judge or Magistrate can still put her fictitious character in prison, and her arguments will be of no aid as her fictitious character sits in a 125-square foot cell dressed in prison fatigues.  

 

I know some people here believe in the common law arguments, but they are of no validity.  At best, the common law theory has a nuisance value and works as a theatrical psychological ploy in difficult legal situations.  You can probably use it as a blag now and then with the odd Magistrates' bench or judge, who know you're full of crap but might agree to dismiss the case just to get rid of you if they're busy and have other cases to hear. 

 

But it's not a real argument.  I believe it was the American poet, Carl Sandberg (not a lawyer), who once famously quipped:

 

Quote

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell

 

These 'common law' arguments are mostly at that level, but it has to be admitted that Sandberg's advice is astute. 

 

One more thing.  The article includes reference to a bullying official in North Yorkshire:

 

Quote

 

Richard Webb, North Yorkshire County Council's corporate director for health and adult services, said: 'Yesterday we were made aware of a campaign doing the rounds across the north of England which urges businesses to have what they called a ''great reopening'' tomorrow.

 

'My plea to all businesses is to ignore this campaign. There will be no great reopening on January 30. I would ask that you continue to act as you have been doing throughout this lockdown and before that and that we fight together this deadly virus.

 

'My warning to those who choose to take part in this campaign is that the enforcement authorities, police, trading standards, environmental health and others will have no choice but to take ultimate action against you.'

 

Mr Webb thanked the businesses in the county who were complying with the closure requirements.'

 

 

The names of these people must be recorded and they must face punishment in the event there are inquiries and this whole thing turns into a massive scandal.  It has been said before, including by myself, and it bears repeating: the Nuremberg defence will not avail.

[Tinfoil Hat]

I went to a private hospital (as an NHS patient) for a scan last week. A staff member there quizzed me at the door, made me sanitise my hands & don a mask, as they always do now, and showed me to the waiting room. 

 

While chatting, she said that 2 of her relatives had died from Covid. I sympathised, but then asked gently, "How do you know it was Covid though? They're calling everything from rickits to ingrowing toenails Covid, aren't they!" She opened and closed her mouth for a bit, then reluctantly acknowledged, "Yes they are". She looked worried and upset.

 

These hospital staff know really. I think they just don't wish to face it. And if everyone they're in contact with just goes along with the deception submissively, they can easily bury their heads in the sand and convince themselves that they have no personal responsibility for perpetuating the colossal lie.

[alexa]

57 minutes ago, facere arbitrium said:

The vaccine isn't necessarily going to stop them from getting or spreading the virus.

 

IMO these vaccines are giving some sort of virus to the public. So personally I'd stay clear of anyone who's been jabbed.

edit

or at least wear a mask 

Edited January 30, 2021 by alexa