Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

[Heather]

Unfortunately, I got into a "conversation" on Twitter today. I use that term in the most general sense since people on social media don't know how to converse, let alone debate. In fact, upon encountering something they disagree with, almost immediately they resort to name calling. So on the rare occasions that I even bother to have such, uh, "exchanges," I wind up [politely] pointing out their lack of debating skills, which gets pretty tedious -- oh, and by the way, if you try to question this particular issue, it's tantamount to being considered a "murderer" (for those of you who haven't attempted this yet).

Anyway, as per the graphic below, I was questioning the efficacy of and dangers attributed to wearing masks. My question is: what is the source of this graphic? Somehow I missed that part. Not that my knowing that would have made much difference, I don't think. But just for my own information, and for future "situations," it might be helpful to know. Thanks for your input on this.

 

[flashgordonv]

My question is: what is the source of this graphic? Somehow I missed that part. Not that my knowing that would have made much difference, I don't think. But just for my own information, and for future "situations," it might be helpful to know. Thanks for your input on this.

View attachment 37229

A quick scan of this thread would reveal articles and papers that back up each of these points. Failing that, you could search on the internet. The data is out there just waiting for you to find it

 

[Heather]

A quick scan of this thread would reveal articles and papers that back up each of these points. Failing that, you could search on the internet. The data is out there just waiting for you to find it

Yes, I did bring up some of that information. I was just wondering about this specific graphic. Thanks, in any case.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Unfortunately, I got into a "conversation" on Twitter today. I use that term in the most general sense since people on social media don't know how to converse, let alone debate. In fact, upon encountering something they disagree with, almost immediately they resort to name calling. So on the rare occasions that I even bother to have such, uh, "exchanges," I wind up [politely] pointing out their lack of debating skills, which gets pretty tedious -- oh, and by the way, if you try to question this particular issue, it's tantamount to being considered a "murderer" (for those of you who haven't attempted this yet).

Anyway, as per the graphic below, I was questioning the efficacy of and dangers attributed to wearing masks. My question is: what is the source of this graphic? Somehow I missed that part. Not that my knowing that would have made much difference, I don't think. But just for my own information, and for future "situations," it might be helpful to know. Thanks for your input on this.

View attachment 37229

A slight segway, in this day and age, I find emotions to be the main driver whereas logic is used as justification for ones emotional outlook but not necessarily the thing that gets someone to change their view.

People will only change their view if you can change their emotional perception of something first and foremost more than presenting rational facts...

The problem with facts in social issues is that many different positions can be taken to be true dependant on one's viewpoint e.g. toppling down a statue and enacting social chaos can be taken to be a just and true cause if one's aim is to tear down what one perceives to be a tyrannical system but on the other hand, it can be unjust, untrue and unfair if one perceives the system as something worth protecting. Likewise with corona, many things will precede ones view on whether something is true or not dependent on their underlying fundamental view of the virus and authority i.e. is it dangerous or is it not? To put it a different way, am I scared of it or am I not?

So, something to take into your next Twitter debate... Realise facts won't change minds... By the time someone comes to debate with you, they've already been on a journey and have already made a decision which is locked in. You'd have to engage them emotionally before you can engage them rationally contrary to what you hear.

Marketers know this already and this is why political campaigns are not fought and won based on politicians debating policy but rather them trying to appeal to the emotions of voters first and foremost

 

[Heather]

A slight segway, in this day and age, I find emotions to be the main driver whereas logic is used as justification for ones emotional outlook but not necessarily the thing that gets someone to change their view.

People will only change their view if you can change their emotional perception of something first and foremost more than presenting rational facts...

The problem with facts in social issues is that many different positions can be taken to be true dependant on one's viewpoint e.g. toppling down a statue and enacting social chaos can be taken to be a just and true cause if one's aim is to tear down what one perceives to be a tyrannical system but on the other hand, it can be unjust, untrue and unfair if one perceives the system as something worth protecting. Likewise with corona, many things will precede ones view on whether something is true or not dependent on their underlying fundamental view of the virus and authority i.e. is it dangerous or is it not? To put it a different way, am I scared of it or am I not?

So, something to take into your next Twitter debate... Realise facts won't change minds... By the time someone comes to debate with you, they've already been on a journey and have already made a decision which is locked in. You'd have to engage them emotionally before you can engage them rationally contrary to what you hear.

Marketers know this already and this is why political campaigns are not fought and won based on politicians debating policy but rather them trying to appeal to the emotions of voters first and foremost

Yes, and this is why ads for pharmaceuticals where they are required to list all the negative possible side effects -- including death, in some cases -- always accompany that data with images of green grass and sunshine and flowers and people smiling, etc. They know that they can "emotionally" trump the grim facts with such inviting imagery.

Actually, when, as I said, I reflect back to these people (who have already written me off as a "bad" person), but when I reflect back to them what they are actually doing, and how they aren't interested in debating an issue so much as assuming a moral high ground, and resorting to name calling, what this does is it forces them to stand back a little, and consider their behavior.

It's tough, though, when you are under attack since it can cause you to feel anxiety. But, even if you are feeling anxious, if you remain calm, and polite, and reflect back, and make whatever point, I believe this calm approach can have some positive effect -- even if it's later on, when the person thinks back on the exchange they had with you. Maybe the next time they won't automatically be so hostile, and reactive.

 

[Aniram]

Hello, everybody,
welcome to France, land of lights where someone stole the candles. I'm watching the movie like I watched Titanic: "Well, they're cute, but when is he going to sink the boat so we can get it over with?" I had some problems with the world before, but this time, frankly...

Aren't they cute ?



We're not getting out of this charade anytime soon.

A few days ago, I found this paper written by two academics and published in the Political and Parliamentary Review (far from being catalogued as subversive). The article focuses in particular on the total disarmament of urban medicine. I noted on the forum that there is an almost systematic "muzzling" of doctors trying to treat with their means in other countries. Today, Professor Raoult, who was heard by a parliamentary commission, referred to this fact, underlining the misuse of the Council of the Order. The result? No mainstream media is picking up on this point. We are starting again on an umpteenth debate on hydroxychloroquine, on the mad scientist's baguette and his possible political career!!!! Tell me this is a joke, that I'm gonna wake up!

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Spoiler: French

Hello tout le monde,
bienvenue en France, pays des lumières à qui quelqu'un a piqué les bougies. Je regarde le film comme j'ai regardé Titanic : "Bon, ils sont bien mignons mais quand est-ce qu'il coule le bateau qu'on en finisse ?" J'avais déjà quelques soucis avec le monde d'avant mais là franchement...
Ne sont-ils pas mignons ?

On n'est pas près de sortir de cette mascarade.
Il y a quelques jours, j'ai trouvé ce papier rédigé par deux universitaires et publié dans la Revue politique et parlementaire (loin d'être cataloguée subversive). L'article revient notamment sur le désarmement total de la médecine de ville. J'ai noté sur le forum le "muselage" quasi systématique des médecins tentant de soigner avec leurs moyens dans d'autres pays. Aujourd'hui le Pr Raoult, qui était entendu devant une commission parlementaire a évoqué ce fait, soulignant le dévoiement du conseil de l'ordre. Résultat ? Aucun média mainstream ne relève ce point. On repart sur un énième débat sur l'hydroxychloroquine, sur le bagou du savant fou et son éventuelle carrière politique !!!! Dites-moi que c'est une blague, que je vais me réveiller !

 

[Ketone Cop]

It isn't an easy decision to walk your own path. Maybe that is what you should consider doing. Everyone has their own responsibilities and lessons to learn in this life and reality and your post seems to me to come across that you want to try be a savior for people when they are not asking for such and may never ask for any help. It may even turn out that the people you are planning to try to help turn on you when things get even more chaotic. This chapter of the Wave and the longer C's quotes toward the end came to mind ( September 19, 1998 - about sending love to those that don't ask / May 3, 1997 about "We stay in relationships or situations because we “feel sorry” for someone.") . Even if the context is different, maybe reading the chapter might bring you some clarity on the questions you are having. The Wave Chapter 8: Everywhere You Look, There Is the Face of God

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that reminder. I can only help people who want to be helped, and I know that now. I have been practicing very strict "strategic enclosure", though, regarding what I have. Only a couple friends and family members know (well, and you guys now), but no one in this area. I understand about making myself a target, but as far as all my neighbors know I'm just that weird dude who does all his yard work using hand tools - no gas or electric! (So if the grid does go down, there may be a demand for my services!)

I've not thought about trying to be a savior; really, just about helping some who need it when the SHTF finally goes down because - quite frankly - I live alone and don't know anyone around me any more, and I'm not sure if I can get through these times without help. And if I do wind up alone, I'd rather not have made it in the first place. I guess what I'm hoping is that the C's are right, that what matters isn't where you are but who you are, and that by being here in the midst of chaos those of similar mind and being will find me if needed. Probably just wishful thinking, I know. But I've done what I can with what I have, and now I have to live with my choices. And I've finally come to terms with that. I release it all to God, and I know a path will show itself when I need it.

You know, it's really interesting looking back and rereading my posts on this thread and the Floyd one. It's almost like I'm out of my body and watching my "3D" body's death throes, and I'm dying hard. I know now that even if this COVID insanity were to end immediately, my life will never be the same again. My old life is over, no matter what happens. I'm processing this through my meditations and my words, and I'm really clearing a lot of gunk that isn't pretty to look at, but it is a necessary process. I'm over the denial phase, and the anger phase, and am slowly moving into acceptance....but it isn't easy!!

Thanks everyone for your input. It is always appreciated, and I hope sharing my process is useful.

BTW: that article I just read about the Oregon county that says black people are exempt from wearing masks because of "racial profiling"? That one article alone is enough to prove that this entire HOAX is nothing about safety at all; but division, subversion, power and control. And I guess I still have some anger issues to work through after reading that...there's life in this body yet!!

 

[Nucifera]

Lincoln County, Oregon has dropped the mask exemption. The political leaders there say they are "shocked and appalled" at the reactions they've gotten. Surprise! Of course, the problem must be racist citizens.

Lincoln County drops mask exemption for people of color, citing racist backlash

The coastal county had initially exempted people of color from mandatory mask-wearing

www.oregonlive.com

 

[sweetcheeks]

apologies for the late reply boys, got off work a tad later tonight!

@Beau

glad to hear that there were others not wearing any masks while you were out today. i have a feeling, though, that that may have been because the issue was reported just this afternoon! that said, i do hope we continue to see others not wearing masks because i still plan to not! i have one i will keep on hand, however, in case i am asked to put one on. on the same token, if i am asked to, i have to admit i will most likely just not shop there! if i am with my ol' lady though, i do not want to cause an embarrassing scene for us so i would comply in that instance. she doesn't want to wear one either but unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of self sustainment. i have no intention of being stubborn.. though, admittedly, i always have been! haha. no worries here though, as it is but another mere obstacle. i do hope we can keep it up as long as we can! i have to agree, gov. pooper has got to go! i thought he was doing 'alright' until today. stay safe beau.

@psychegram

i feel i will begin to experience your frustrations soon enough brother. we will all be okay in the end.. and i am definitely planning on picking up enough items to last us lots of time in order to not have to deal with this mess! the idea at this point, for me at least, is to minimize time spent running errands. i have been able to drop it down to shopping once a month but now i may very well shop enough to last two or more months! we'll see how it works out though. my ol' lady and i love grocery shopping and cooking together so we may still make our biweekly trips to the grocery store! i reckon sacrifices must be made and a ground you are comfortable standing on must be found. just as well, stay safe out there bud.

much love to you all

 

[mabar]

Remember that article on Forbes that was published a few days ago, where the Norwegian scientist with his team concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made in a lab? I'm not sure if it was posted here (search didn't bring any results). Well, as one might expect, the dark forces were quick to do damage control, and now, after first taking the whole thing down, they've edited the text in the article so that it indicates the complete opposite. They've added a lot of baloney text in the original (see comparison below).

Mercola site published an article just about that Forbes Caught in Blatant Censoring Act

 

[SOTTREADER]

Yes, and this is why ads for pharmaceuticals where they are required to list all the negative possible side effects -- including death, in some cases -- always accompany that data with images of green grass and sunshine and flowers and people smiling, etc. They know that they can "emotionally" trump the grim facts with such inviting imagery.

Actually, when, as I said, I reflect back to these people (who have already written me off as a "bad" person), but when I reflect back to them what they are actually doing, and how they aren't interested in debating an issue so much as assuming a moral high ground, and resorting to name calling, what this does is it forces them to stand back a little, and consider their behavior.

It's tough, though, when you are under attack since it can cause you to feel anxiety. But, even if you are feeling anxious, if you remain calm, and polite, and reflect back, and make whatever point, I believe this calm approach can have some positive effect -- even if it's later on, when the person thinks back on the exchange they had with you. Maybe the next time they won't automatically be so hostile, and reactive.

Yup, you need nerves of steel to remain calm when under a barrage though!

Another thing you can do is reflect back to them from sources they trust.

I had a debate with someone where I sent him a news clip from RT. He immediately dismissed this as Russia propaganda - it was actually quite hostile.

I then sent the same clip from channel 4 (a channel here in England) and his emotional outlook changed... From then on, the interaction changed.

See below - pay attention to 'P', he is the main mainstream guy.

We were talking about the validity of the lockdown / narrative around the vaccine and I mentioned that the scare tactics the media / gov is using has been done before.

 

[Heather]

Yup, you need nerves of steel to remain calm when under a barrage though!

Another thing you can do is reflect back to them from sources they trust.

I had a debate with someone where I sent him a news clip from RT. He immediately dismissed this as Russia propaganda - it was actually quite hostile.

I then sent the same clip from channel 4 (a channel here in England) and his emotional outlook changed... From then on, the interaction changed.

See below - pay attention to 'P', he is the main mainstream guy.

We were talking about the validity of the lockdown / narrative around the vaccine and I mentioned that the scare tactics the media / gov is using has been done before.

View attachment 37236
View attachment 37238
View attachment 37239
View attachment 37240
View attachment 37241View attachment 37242

Thanks, SR. That's a good exchange you had.

On Twitter I just got this response (from a new person adding to the conversation of yesterday):

"Science does not care if you agree with it.

Your opinions are not science or facts. Neither are unsourced memes, of memes from unscientific sources."

The "memes from unscientific sources" no doubt refers to the graphic about masks that I tweeted yesterday, and that I asked about here, wondering what the exact source was. By the way, no one asked me yesterday what the source of the graphic was, either. They just summarily dismissed it as "trash."



Maybe you or someone else here can help me to put together a useful response to the above tweet. Yesterday, I had indirectly referred to the Irish immunologist who pointed out that COVID-19, unlike Ebola virus, is not airborne. The person I was tweeting with looked this up (who knows where) and flatly denied this. I suggested the person view the video himself to decide whether the source was credible. No dice.

I also spoke to the issue of source, pointing out that Anthony Fauci, for example, stood to make untold millions given the new COVID-19 vaccines are using his patented proteins. I suggested we should all be concerned about this. But by this point the person had left the conversation. Still, no one else listening in on our conversation had anything to say about that.

As to the Irish immunologist (I'd have to look up her name again), to me what's problematic about the interview is that she doesn't say much about the mask, other than saying it's unnecessary. I remember thinking she could have addressed some issues, like whether the virus could be carried on spittle, for example, even though it's not airborne. (If anyone here has info. on this, I'm still interested to know.) Or she could have spoken about how the virus does get transmitted -- on surfaces, touching the face, etc. But she moved on quickly from the topic. So, I'm not sure using that interview would be very helpful in this instance.

Ah -- the Irish immunologist is Professor Dolores J. Cahill, and she's been banned from Youtube for spreading misinformation about the virus. If you do a search using her name she is largely reviled, although there are some sites, no doubt conservative, supporting her views -- especially since she's calling for ending the lockdown, without masks or social distancing.

Anyway, thanks in advance for your input on this. I truly appreciate it.

 

[Heather]

Thanks, SR. That's a good exchange you had.

On Twitter I just got this response (from a new person adding to the conversation of yesterday):

"Science does not care if you agree with it.

Your opinions are not science or facts. Neither are unsourced memes, of memes from unscientific sources."

The "memes from unscientific sources" no doubt refers to the graphic about masks that I tweeted yesterday, and that I asked about here, wondering what the exact source was. By the way, no one asked me yesterday what the source of the graphic was, either. They just summarily dismissed it as "trash."

View attachment 37248

Maybe you or someone else here can help me to put together a useful response to the above tweet. Yesterday, I had indirectly referred to the Irish immunologist who pointed out that COVID-19, unlike Ebola virus, is not airborne. The person I was tweeting with looked this up (who knows where) and flatly denied this. I suggested the person view the video himself to decide whether the source was credible. No dice.

I also spoke to the issue of source, pointing out that Anthony Fauci, for example, stood to make untold millions given the new COVID-19 vaccines are using his patented proteins. I suggested we should all be concerned about this. But by this point the person had left the conversation. Still, no one else listening in on our conversation had anything to say about that.

As to the Irish immunologist (I'd have to look up her name again), to me what's problematic about the interview is that she doesn't say much about the mask, other than saying it's unnecessary. I remember thinking she could have addressed some issues, like whether the virus could be carried on spittle, for example, even though it's not airborne. (If anyone here has info. on this, I'm still interested to know.) Or she could have spoken about how the virus does get transmitted -- on surfaces, touching the face, etc. But she moved on quickly from the topic. So, I'm not sure using that interview would be very helpful in this instance.

Ah -- the Irish immunologist is Professor Dolores J. Cahill, and she's been banned from Youtube for spreading misinformation about the virus. If you do a search using her name she is largely reviled, although there are some sites, no doubt conservative, supporting her views -- especially since she's calling for ending the lockdown, without masks or social distancing.

Anyway, thanks in advance for your input on this. I truly appreciate it.

I could respond (to the tweet mentioned in the above post):

Today's social/political environment is so polarized there is no room for true debate. Instead, we see a culture of fear & blind conformity to so called "authorities," who should be held to highest standard, but are not--due to the power they wield through fear & manipulation.

OR... should I use that later (if necessary), after I offer more, hopefully convincing data?... which is what I'm asking for your help with.

 

[SOTTREADER]

@Heather

I can see this Twitter exchange really got to you! There's always the possibility that some of the respondents were trolls and / or totally brainwashed shills - no doubt a place like Twitter is littered by an untold number of unsavoury characters.

Personally I'd disengage from dealing with the mass public through forums such as Twitter or YouTube if one is emotionally sensitive. It's the wild west out there and people frankly aren't interested in the same things you are - some just enjoy being bullies.

In any case, on this

"Science does not care if you agree with it.

Your opinions are not science or facts. Neither are unsourced memes, of memes from unscientific sources."

I'd point out that it is naive to think scientific opinion and / or research is not influenced by vested interests e.g. commercial or political interests. That's just a fact.

I wouldn't attack Fauci directly as he is seen as a Demi-God by those thoroughly brainwashed but what I'd mention is that the science on the effectiveness of face masks is not settled, especially those made from cloth which is what is recommended to the public as the rest should be reserved for health care professionals . Here for example you can see that the language is littered with a lot of 'may' or 'can'.

Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

Face masks can help slow the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Learn about mask types, which masks to use and how to use them.

www.mayoclinic.org

Also, the particles for corona can pass through the spacing in the cloth.

In addition you can always make your arguements from a human rights perspective... If the person wishes for the government to act as a dictator, you can tell them maybe they should move to China. In the west, we have such a thing as individual freedoms that should be protected - we aren't China. Plus with all the opaqueness coming from government who's to say what can or can't be trusted e.g. The chief adviser for project warp speed, Moncef Slaoui has deep commercial connections with the private sector. What's to say anything that comes out of his mouth will be purely in the public interest as opposed to the interests of commercial entities? Again, you can point out the naivety of having blind faith in authority like a little poodle (can get a little personal there :P)

In any case, lots of different ways you can go about this but it all costs energy and I'm not sure it's worth your time and effort. As I say, people out there have mostly made a choice - at best you can make them have a little bit of doubt which may trigger something but at worst, you could become a target for bullies and character disturbed individuals. Remember again, allies aren't that easy to come by, most people will just remain quiet on the side line whilst you get ravaged by wolves.

Personally I don't comment in cesspools like Twitter and the like - call it self preservation.

 

[Heather]

@Heather

I can see this Twitter exchange really got to you! There's always the possibility that some of the respondents were trolls and / or totally brainwashed shills - no doubt a place like Twitter is littered by an untold number of unsavoury characters.

Personally I'd disengage from dealing with the mass public through forums such as Twitter or YouTube if one is emotionally sensitive. It's the wild west out there and people frankly aren't interested in the same things you are - some just enjoy being bullies.

In any case, on this

"Science does not care if you agree with it.

Your opinions are not science or facts. Neither are unsourced memes, of memes from unscientific sources."

I'd point out that it is naive to think scientific opinion and / or research is not influenced by vested interests e.g. commercial or political interests. That's just a fact.

I wouldn't attack Fauci directly as he is seen as a Demi-God by those thoroughly brainwashed but what I'd mention is that the science on the effectiveness of face masks is not settled, especially those made from cloth which is what is recommended to the public as the rest should be reserved for health care professionals . Here for example you can see that the language is littered with a lot of 'may' or 'can'.

Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

Face masks can help slow the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Learn about mask types, which masks to use and how to use them.

www.mayoclinic.org

Also, the particles for corona can pass through the spacing in the cloth.

In addition you can always make your arguements from a human rights perspective... If the person wishes for the government to act as a dictator, you can tell them maybe they should move to China. In the west, we have such a thing as individual freedoms that should be protected - we aren't China. Plus with all the opaqueness coming from government who's to say what can or can't be trusted e.g. The chief adviser for project warp speed, Moncef Slaoui has deep commercial connections with the private sector. What's to say anything that comes out of his mouth will be purely in the public interest as opposed to the interests of commercial entities? Again, you can point out the naivety of having blind faith in authority like a little poodle (can get a little personal there :P)

In any case, lots of different ways you can go about this but it all costs energy and I'm not sure it's worth your time and effort. As I say, people out there have mostly made a choice - at best you can make them have a little bit of doubt which may trigger something but at worst, you could become a target for bullies and character disturbed individuals. Remember again, allies aren't that easy to come by, most people will just remain quiet on the side line whilst you get ravaged by wolves.

Personally I don't comment in cesspools like Twitter and the like - call it self preservation.

Ha! Yes, well, I don't usually have conversations like this on Twitter. I posted the mask related graphic in support of what someone else was saying, so I didn't even start the conversation. The graphic seems to make so much common sense, it's hard to believe people would react so strongly.

Anyway, I'll mull this over. As per the link you provided, I could say that even Mayo Clinic points out that mask wearing shouldn't replace social distancing, which leads one to ask why that is. You made a lot of other good points as well.

In any event, thanks again S.R. for your input on this. It's nice not to have to feel so alone out there. What is really hard to take is not so much the resistance to anything outside of mainstream sources, but the ugly, "have to shut you down" attitude that precludes real conversation or debate. And the immediate resort to name calling is just so pathetic. Actually, this last tweet is an improvement. The person decided to try to "reason" with me without resorting to name calling. So, you see? I may have had some positive impact, after all. Oh, and I don't believe I've had any trolling so far. No, this is just how people are expressing themselves these days -- a bit like trolls, in fact, even if they're not. It was a writer I was talking to initially, and those who tweeted me it's safe to assume are all fellow writers that follow the guy, who is quite popular, in fact; has a lot of followers.

Okay, well, if anyone else has any additional suggestions (in response to the tweet previously mentioned by myself and S.R.) please contribute. For example: what's the best information you've come across (aside from that informative mask related graphic) that scientifically explains the health risks and ineffectiveness of mask wearing as concerns COVID-19? And again, if anyone knows the source of the mask related graphic it might be helpful to know at this point.