The Playground

    @Wyttenbach-yes we all know the radioactive isotopes will be diluted down by the Pacific Ocean. I was referring to the concentration of radioisotopes in the food chains in the local region around the sea of Japan. And all their exports of sushi internationally! Plutonium Sushi for lunch, anyone?

    In a civilised ideal world, you see, with modern technology all the valuable radioisotopes released from Fukushima (and all other nuclear plants) could (I know expensively) be concentrated, extracted and re-used. Instead they dump it all in the sea on poor unsuspecting fish. Then the poor unsuspecting Japanese eat it raw! How ridiculous is this state of affairs?

    "Donna" has understood how the Ecat works, Bravo, "Donna"!


    Won’t Get Fooled Again | City Journal (city-journal.org)


    More than a century ago, Mark Twain identified two fundamental problems that would prove relevant to the Covid pandemic. “How easy it is to make people believe a lie,” he wrote, “and how hard it is to undo that work again!” No convincing evidence existed at the start of the pandemic that lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates would protect people against the virus, but it was remarkably easy to make the public believe that these policies were “the science.” Today, thanks to two years of actual scientific evidence, it’s clearer than ever that these were terrible mistakes; yet most people still believe that the measures were worthwhile—and many are eager to maintain some mandates even longer.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Won’t Get Fooled Again | City Journal (city-journal.org)


    More than a century ago, Mark Twain identified two fundamental problems that would prove relevant to the Covid pandemic. “How easy it is to make people believe a lie,” he wrote, “and how hard it is to undo that work again!” No convincing evidence existed at the start of the pandemic that lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates would protect people against the virus, but it was remarkably easy to make the public believe that these policies were “the science.” Today, thanks to two years of actual scientific evidence, it’s clearer than ever that these were terrible mistakes; yet most people still believe that the measures were worthwhile—and many are eager to maintain some mandates even longer.

    Provocative of you to suggest that the "science" was a "lie". ;)


    As you know, at the start of the pandemic there was a lot that we did know about infections and how they spread but a lot that we did not know specifically about this virus.

    So the science proceeded in the normal way of discussions and arguments and trials and gradually learning more.


    Some argued the case for doing nothing or doing the minimal - the blase argument. These were people mainly worried about damage to the economy.

    Some argued the case for even more extensive lockdowns than we got - the worried argument. These people were mainly worried about high death totals.


    If the CFR (or IFR or whatever you want) had turned out to be very low then the "blase group" would have turned out to be justified.

    If the case fatality rate had turned out to be very high then the "worried group" would have been justified.


    Now more than two years later we have tons of data and evidence. Yet people still argue even about well established science.


    At the start lockdowns, school closures, and masks were part of the limited tool box that we had and therefore worthy of consideration if they can save many lives.

    And now we have vaccines, and some are saying we should not be using those either.

    This is nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and social media.


    Now how effective masks, lockdowns etc were is difficult to say. Like yourself I am open to evidence and learning.

    At the start I think we could agree that lockdowns were something of a knee-jerk reaction, as opposed to doing nothing.

    Personally I think the measures taken helped to "buy time" till scientists uncovered the scale of the threat.

    If we had done nothing and the CFR was say 25% then things could have gotten REALLY BAD.


    Did Sweden do so much better than comparable countries without lockdowns? Unsurprisingly there is an argument about that.

    I agree that lockdowns in some cases were bluntly applied policies with limited upside and significant downside. The worst example seems to be China where the early lockdowns were praised as effective, and so much better than what the western democracies were able to do, but now China is still applying massive lockdowns when everywhere else the pandemic strategies have evolved beyond lockdowns.


    So no black and white truths, and no lies, just science in action.

    Now as far as the politics is concerned ... lies all the way.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Won’t Get Fooled Again | City Journal (city-journal.org)


    More than a century ago, Mark Twain identified two fundamental problems that would prove relevant to the Covid pandemic. “How easy it is to make people believe a lie,” he wrote, “and how hard it is to undo that work again!” No convincing evidence existed at the start of the pandemic that lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates would protect people against the virus, but it was remarkably easy to make the public believe that these policies were “the science.” Today, thanks to two years of actual scientific evidence, it’s clearer than ever that these were terrible mistakes; yet most people still believe that the measures were worthwhile—and many are eager to maintain some mandates even longer.

    Shane, I think you are getting confused here, and using the word "protect" as though this is a binary thing.


    I agree that whether you lock-down a country to reduce the burden on the health system - and deaths from people who would have lived if they caught the virus when vaccines had come though - is a complex essentially political decision. There are many other undesirable consequences for health and the economy (which itself impacts health) of lockdowns.


    I disagree that no convincing evidence existed lockdowns would work. Given an R of 2.5 they were bound to work - and even with delta - R = 7 - lockdown in the UK worked. The fact that 2 years later, with a completely different virus - omicron - much more infectious - they did not work is not the point.


    If you are saying that in the US anyone was advocating lockdown as a way to deal with omicron then that was stupid - I agree.


    If you are saying the previous lockdowns were a bad idea - well that is political. Not a lie - because they did what they said on the tin. At least they worked find in the UK.


    And the key reason for the lockdowns was always to reduce short-term deaths - when long-term we have nearly all the population vaccinated and no longer need them. That worked OK in the UK - except we were not good at reducing short-term deaths. Our health and social care system got overloaded and we sent covid positive patients out to infect care homes - we had agency staff moving between social care homes carrying infection.


    So - call out lies. I'm all for it. Especially the ivermectin/antivaxxer stuff posted here so much.


    Make the political point that short term old people dying is a price worth paying for society to have less economic and social pain.


    And as for masks. There is plenty evidence that they work - a bit. DIY ones work very variably, but are better than nothing. FFP3 ones (like M3 Aura) work well to protect the wearer as well as protect the environment. If you are a libertarian of a particular sort you think being mandated to wear masks is a big deal. I don't get it myself. It is the same sort of thing as nudists who think being mandated to wear clothes of some description is tyrannical. I see the theory, but I am practical.


    The only question (again political) for mask wearing and mandates is whether you actually want to reduce transmission. In an epidemic wave that slows down infection but (for omicron and delta) does not stop it because eventually most people get infected. Once you have had a vaccine rollout It still has merits in making public life a bit easier for those who really don't want to catch COVID due to immune system issues etc. Though I'd say they could better be wearing FFP3 masks, so this looks a weak reason to me. That puts it at the same level of the mandate to wear clothes. It spares peoples feelings.


    Maybe in the US things were more confused because the antivaxxers were so successful at convincing many vulnerable people not to get vaccinated?


    THH

    Quote from ZenoOfElea

    So no black and white truths, and no lies, just science in action.

    Now as far as the politics is concerned ... lies all the way.

    You simply fail in all aspects. There never was science in action. WHO did not recommend masks and lockdowns because science always has been against it.

    But after the FM/R/F/B mafia bribed = politics enough WHO people the science was ignored.


    Todays facts: RNA vaccines did cause more overall deaths than deaths prevented. Lockdowns, "fake vaccines etc." did kill 10-100x more children than CoV-19 and the killing goes on. 200-300% increase in suicide.

    USA and many other countries destroyed one generation of students that never could do what we did.


    Remember that for age < 30 CoV-19 is zero=0 risk.


    So I can only say trolls like you will go for ever...

    Pfizer to Court: Toss Lawsuit That Revealed COVID-19 Vaccine Testing Issues


    https://www.newsmax.com/amp/newsfront/pfizer-fda-ventavia-icon/2022/05/22/id/1070944/


    Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit brought by a whistleblower that revealed problems at the testing sites used in Pfizer's critical phase III trial of its COVID-19 vaccine.


    Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against Pfizer, Ventavia, and ICON, alleging they had "concealed violations of both their clinical trial protocol and federal regulations, including falsification of clinical trial documents."


    But Pfizer, in its motion to dismiss the case, argued that such regulations don't apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was conducted under the auspices of an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), reported The Epoch Times' Zachary Stieber. An OTA allows contractors to circumvent otherwise existing rules and laws that typically apply to contracts. Pfizer was granted its contract to develop a "prototype," which falls under the protection of an OTA.


    Kathryn Ardizzone, who serves as counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, said the government made up "an absurd fiction" and used an OTA to grant the contract.

    Quote from GRMattson

    Seatrout

    This is why I suggested you make ceramic tiles. You like the pretty pictures, but ignore the physics. Maybe you should dig into that. What are those little round chambers for?

    Go back in this site a few years for ceramic work grm.

    I let each think what they will.of what i tinker with. and why.

    Your still kinda new here. and I try not to pic on anyone.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from GRMattson

    Seatrout


    Not going to happen. It's your responsibility to explain what you are doing now. I also see that you don't answer questions, like others here.

    Because its an open forum GRM, would you show and tell exactly how to build a energy gravity well or some other equally touchy tech.

    Its also unlikely I would build something straight from the box that would work knowing the rules and spending to much time under mil spec.in the past or wasting any more of it

    From my point of view the responsibility of learning is the same as school, give them the puzzle parts and see what thy come up with at the final exam.

    Trout.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.