Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

Jones said:
Two small businesses in Melbourne have decided to re-open and risk the $10,000 fine. One a menswear shop, and the other a hair dresser. The menswear shop in Berwick, Harry's Clothing, attracted huge community support and did get fined. It will be another matter whether the fine will stand up in court. The hair dresser, Adam Weave and Barber Salon in Hughesdale also got fined. One of the complaints of the owners of the salon is that the police were all over them, but right next door was a dog grooming salon that was allowed to be open for business!
Click to expand...
And yet 24 hours later hairdressers are suddenly "safe". Amazing how quickly it changes from a death sentence hey? Just by one simple decree from our Supreme Leader.
 
Was sent this video of a member of parliament (Canada) asking a question related to the request from the government to build Internment Covid Quarantine Camps in Ontario. Well, the video is real enough, and the chap (glad he asked) received a mumbo jumbo response back, of course; changing the subjects context.

The 'Letter of Interest' only looks to a 1600 bed facility, assuming this is the only one. However if the gov. was serious of moving from Letters of Interest to contract, a multiplier could easily be assigned based on design.

Most provinces already have massive mining, oil and gas and construction camps built in the North, yet I'm getting ahead of myself.

 
Jones said:
An economist working for the Victorian Treasury, Sanjeev Sabhlok, has quit his job rather than be silenced on speaking out against coronavirus measures.
Click to expand...

The same economist has now written an open letter to the Treasury and expects the Treasurers response to be posted on the Treasury webpage - that is if the Treasurer even gives a response. Judging by the letter, that's unlikely.

It's a comprehensive letter and he cites law, Treasury policy, part of which is to protect the prosperity of Victorians, and addresses the drifting narrative that started with 'flatten the curve' for two weeks and has bought Victoria to where it is now.

Dated 18 October 2020

Dear Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance

I address you not by name but as the head of a major Victorian institution, the Treasury. Please do not take this letter as a reflection of any of your personal actions but as the performance of the institution you represent – the Treasury; for you are not alone but are advised on a daily basis by a large number of highly paid executives who have been hired to advise you honestly and forthrightly about all policy matters.

I begin by noting the comment made by the Treasurer of Victoria on his Twitter account on 10 September 2020 (the day on which I was handing over my laptop and pass to the head of the Treasury’s People and Culture branch): “These restrictions are keeping us all safe but they come at a devastating economic cost” (
https://twitter.com/x/status/1303907008920211457
). Due to the word limitations on Twitter, the Treasurer perhaps failed to mention that the Government is keenly aware of the enormous mental health cost of the lockdowns which has led the Government to pour millions of dollars into mental health. It is also keenly aware that people are terrorised by the lockdowns and are not getting their essential health checks, which is certain to lead to an unprecedented increase in cancer and heart disease in the coming years.

The harm caused by the virus is an Act of Nature but the harm caused by lockdowns is an Act of Man. This Open Letter is about the enormous harm being caused to Victoria by the government (Act of Man) – not by the virus.

The Treasury, as an institution, is required to prevent such catastrophic man-made harm. That’s why I write to the Treasury, not just to the Secretary.

The people of Victoria pay millions of dollars each year to the Treasury so it can be populated with expertise from a wide range of fields, to assist the Secretary in advising the government of the day in a manner consistent with the laws of the State.

As Treasury is, above all, a trustee of the people, with only one goal: to create an economic and social environment that is conducive to the wellbeing and prosperity of all Victorians.

I do not know the Secretary’s precise salary but since Phil Gaetjens was paid $879,978 at the Commonwealth Treasury, I assume the Victorian taxpayers pay the Treasury’s Secretary at least $700,000 (Source: Australia's best paid bureaucrat rakes in $2.5m). Such an amount is not paid to the Secretary by Victorians to merely be a Ministerial Adviser. Such advisers can, without much loss of integrity, interpret laws in a manner favourable to their political masters and even obey illegal orders – since their political aims and power games do not have to, at any point, overlap with the welfare of Victorians.

But the public service is different. Public servants are required to provide independent, frank and fearless advice to the government of the day and to oppose all actions that breach the laws. In proving his or her advice to the Treasurer, Secretary of the Treasury is expected to actively seek advice and inputs from across his organisation. That is why the Treasury hires people like me on its rolls – not petty pen-pushers but highly qualified, trained and experienced knowledge workers.

It was widely known from mid-February 2020 that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is skewed towards the elderly, especially those – amongst them – whose immune system is compromised by other illness. Accordingly, in late February 2020, I wrote to senior executives in the Treasury with initial suggestions about how this pandemic could be managed.

I have FOI’d my precise email from the Treasury but I recall that it included words to the following effect – that the wholesale social isolation that China and Italy are implementing is not an optimal strategy to minimise harm from coronavirus. I wrote to my bosses that the data are suggesting that the young in Victoria (below 40) can go about their business without much concern, that those between 40 and 60 can wear protective equipment (masks, gloves, etc.) and go to work while taking extra precautions at all times. And that those above 60 (and those with weak respiratory systems) should mainly work from home and minimise interactions with others. In my email I advised that doing so will minimise the (inevitable and unavoidable) hit to Victoria’s GSP and minimise health costs.

I should have probably clarified the health costs issue in my email – that it would include the prevention of the loss of additional lives from non-COVID-19 issues precipitated by the lockdowns, something that I have detailed in my October 2020 book, The Great Hysteria and The Broken State, which is available both as a print and kindle edition – The Great Hysteria and The Broken State eBook: Sabhlok, Sanjeev : Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store.

I recall that in response I was told in writing (or at least verbally) that this was a matter purely for the DHHS. I have FOI’d that email, if any, but recall clearly a senior official coming to my desk to explain this – so it might not have been in an email.

In addition, over the many months since the Victorian Government chose to impose lockdowns that are even more draconian than the Wuhan lockdowns, I repeatedly raised concerns with my team and my bosses. Except for some off-the-record emails and phone calls with a few colleagues who were equally concerned, the Treasury bosses basically said that pandemic policy is not their business. I was steered away from raising my concerns despite raising them repeatedly and despite my extensive past experience in risk assessment as a former executive of the Victorian WorkCover Authority. Please inquire into the endless attempts I made while at the Treasury to flag my concerns. My comments were even labelled – perhaps jocularly – as a “rant” by one of the senior executives, which is fine, but who then did not bother to ask me about the reasons for my deep concern. I also shared some of the 17 articles about the pandemic that I have written over the past year in my Times of India blog (Seeing the Invisible Blog - Times of India Blog) within the Treasury but no executive was interested in such information. It seems everyone had been told to put blinkers around their eyes.

Original Victorian pandemic policy was consistent with the laws

Fortunately, as I discovered after my resignation from the Treasury when I started conducting research for my book, Victoria’s 10 March 2020 Pandemic Plan said pretty much what I wrote to my bosses in February 2020.

It took a risk-based approach and “focused on protecting vulnerable Victorians”. It stated that “older Victorians and people with chronic diseases are known to be at greater risk of COVID-19 infection”. And said that it would “ramp up risk reduction activity [for] at-risk groups”.

The 10 March 2020 Victorian pandemic plan also included the most important principle of all – of proportionality: to “ensure a proportionate and equitable response”. It wanted things to be “flexible and proportionate” and to “reduce [not eliminate] the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19”. It spoke only about flattening of the curve, not about the extreme suppression bordering on elimination that we have been seeing in Victoria – which is specifically forbidden by Australia’s biosecurity laws.

Victoria’s 10 March 2020 pandemic plan did have a strategy of workplace closures, when necessary. But any concerns one might have had about this strategy would have been alleviated because the plan also required the principles of risk and proportionality to be followed. As well, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 imposes stern restrictions on the powers of the Chief Health Officer to close down workplaces. Any closures under Victoria’s original pandemic plan would therefore have been extremely rare and well-targeted, not indiscriminate like what we’ve seen over the past six months.

Victoria’s pandemic plan did not say that Melbourne would be converted into a city-wide prison for a moderate pandemic (that too with a ring of steel) while everyone waits at home for a vaccine to get invented, tested, approved, mass-produced and punched into every Victorian.

In other words, the 10 March 2020 Victorian plan was a well-balanced response to what was always going to be a difficult problem.

The plan was also consistent with the Victorian Guide to Regulation, the toolkit for which is located on the Treasury’s website and which states: “It is not possible for governments to provide a completely ‘risk free’ society, or to prevent every possible event that might cause harm”. Further: “the direct and indirect costs imposed by regulatory approaches may not be … immediately obvious. Risk regulation that is poorly targeted or costly will divert resources from other priorities”.

In other words, both my February 2020 advice and DHHS’s own pandemic plan of 10 March 2020 were consistent with the Treasury’s long-established practice of risk-based and performance-based regulation.

In this regard I invite the Secretary’s attention to Section 9 of Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 which states: “decisions made and actions taken in the administration of this Act should be proportionate to the public health risk sought to be prevented, minimised or controlled; and should not be made or taken in an arbitrary manner”.

Nothing could be more arbitrary than the directives issued by the Chief Health Officer. Not one of them is justified by the science – and he refuses to publish the reasons for these entirely arbitrary orders – thus breaching another requirement of the Act.

Section 8 of Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 requires that those who impose public health measures must provide full information and allow the public to participate: “Members of the public should be given access to reliable information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of public health issues” as well as “opportunities to participate in policy and program development”. Sadly, despite my asking the Chief Health Officer at least 30 times, he has refused to provide or publish any reasons for his entirely arbitrary public health directives. That is because he has no reason that can stand in the court of law.

As I have continued to research the matter after my resignation it is becoming more obvious that Victoria’s lockdowns not only breach good regulatory policy practice (which the Treasury supervises on behalf of the Treasurer) but are in compressive breach of Victoria’s public health laws and a number of international covenants including the Nuremberg Code, UN’s declaration on bioethics and Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Regarding the risk posed by the virus, I agree that no one knew the magnitude of the risk posed by the novel coronavirus in February 2020, but by mid-April 2020 anyone with rudimentary arithmetic skills would have known that the pandemic was tracking far below initial estimates. For example, initial models (such as those based on the work of Neil Ferguson from the Imperial College) had suggested that Sweden would experience over 95,000 deaths from COVID-19 without lockdowns, with a bulk of these deaths occurring in April 2020. To date, 5,918 have died in Sweden. And, as Sweden’s State Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell regretfully admits, many, if not most of these deaths could have been averted had Sweden deployed more resources into its aged-care homes in the early days of the pandemic.

When precisely did the Treasury abandon its policy advice role?

As the Secretary can see, I have innumerable objections to the actions taken by DHHS and the Government since around the 20 March 2020 when Victoria’s pandemic plan and the laws of Victoria were abandoned. In my book I try to explain why this might have happened. Possibly, the hysteria created by the media made the situation too difficult for politicians to handle. But that is why we have hundreds of independent public servants like me, with the Secretary of the Treasury expected to provide the Treasurer with advice that he needs to see, even when society has gone hysterical.

I am confident that had the Secretary sought to obtain formal legal and economic policy advice from the Deputy Secretaries of the Corporate Services and Economic divisions on the DHHS’s radical change in plans in late March 2020, he or she would have been in no doubt that the shift in policy was inconsistent with both the original pandemic plan and the laws of Victoria. And, having obtained such advice, the Secretary’s role would have been to advise the Treasurer against the measures being imposed in Victoria.

I was, however, not made aware at any stage whether the Treasury had put its foot down on these ridiculous and unlawful “public health” “measures” by providing formal advice to the Treasurer. Instead, I experienced what I believe is the strongest culture of groupthink that I’ve experienced in my entire life (I have elaborated this in my book).

Now, there are two possibilities.

First, that the Secretary did advise the Treasurer in writing against these policies and the Treasurer did not accept the advice. If that did happen, I believe that the Secretary and all Deputy Secretaries ought to have resigned given they are also citizens and sworn to defending the laws of Victoria and the prosperity of all Victorians. When Victoria’s laws are breached on such a grand scale, I would expect senior public servants to speak directly to the people – a task that I, a lowly paid economist, am now performing.

The second possibility is that the Secretary did not provide such advice. It is not possible for the Secretary of the Treasury to tell me that pandemic policy is not within the ambit of the Treasury’s scope of work. In my almost 15 years in the Treasury I do not recall any major public policy area on which we did not provide written advice to the Treasurer from the perspective of enhancing the prosperity of all Victorians. So, if no advice was provided then it could only happen if the Secretary chose to back-off. If that happened, was it because of a written government directive to the Secretary or was it a political decision the Secretary made – who then acted as a Ministerial Advisor to the Treasurer.

There is yet another possibility – that everything I’m saying is wrong, that everything I have written in my book is wrong, that my interpretation of the science and the laws is wrong, that my interpretation of the Victorian Guide to Regulation is wrong – in which case I request the Secretary to publicly refute all the points I make in my book and refute the Victorian laws and Victoria’s pandemic plan of 10 March 2020 and all international covenants that I have cited.

The Secretary of the Treasury can defend his or her support for draconian lockdowns by proving to me that such lockdowns are consistent with the science and the laws and that masks are extremely beneficial when worn outdoors in the open air with no one around for tens, if not hundreds of metres. If the Treasury is able to do so, including by providing me with an appropriate cost-benefit test that confirms that there will be only benefits from lockdowns and no additional (man-made) mental harm, deaths or reduction in lifespan from the lockdowns, then – as I have said repeatedly (in my book and on Channel 9’s Current Affairs program last week) – I will be happy to support the harshest possible restrictions in Victoria. Please do note that the precautionary principle cannot be used as a basis to implement policies that are specifically prohibited and rejected by science, e.g. lockdowns and mandatory masks outdoors.

There are many other things I wish to raise with the Secretary but I will not do so due to paucity of time. Instead, I request Treasury officials to read my 29,000-word book and 5,500-word paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society (https://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/PAPER FOR GRIFFITH.pdf).

I do wish to note one thing, though: that by trying to get me to remove my posts against the Police State that Victoria has become, the Secretary of the Treasury (as an institution) indicated his direct support for police brutalities in Victoria. Please explain why the Secretary of the Treasury believes (and in particular the Executive Director who asked me to remove my criticisms) that it is necessary and beneficial to create a Police State in Victoria and attack the trust between citizens and Victoria Police – and the trust between citizens.

I look forward to the Secretary’s response that is posted on the Treasury’s website and shared with the media across Victoria and Australia. I do not have the resources to keep FOI’ing relevant information, so I request that the Treasury also publish – in the public interest and in the interest of transparency and good governance – all relevant non-Cabinet Ministerial briefs and other correspondence and internal working documents in which the Treasury has advised the Treasurer or the Treasurer’s Private Office on the legality and policy legitimacy or otherwise of the Government’s pandemic policy.

Regards

Sanjeev Sabhlok

Click to expand...

Dan Andrews is having some woman problems :lol:. Two female journalists who attend his daily news briefings have been asking him some very pointed questions. There has been call for one of them, Peta Credlin who also used to work in parliament, to be banned from the briefings. He seems to be just holding on to his temper in some of the footage of the briefings. Peta Credlin is from Sky News and the Sun Herald, the other is Rachel Baxendale from The Australian. It was Peta Credlin's questioning that has blown open the Hotel Quarantine Enquiry when she pushed for telephone records to be supplied to the Enquiry as she identified a 6 minute time frame where she felt that telephone records would show who authorised a private security firm to manage hotel quarantine. There is a support page for them here where footage is uploaded from the briefings. There are also some whispers, though not substantiated yet, that Dan Andrews had connections to the security firm in question that he didn't disclose. At the moment though, the Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton seems to be in the hot seat.
 
Had not checked up on the Off-Guardian in awhile, and now see there is a debate running (Dr. Piers Robinson Chair) opening October 10th with Dr. Tim Anderson against, and followed by Dr. Denis Rancourt (both carried on SOTT and on the Forum from time to time). I have only started to run through them - to review the point, counter point, and it is lively. Did not want to forget it so here they are:

Great VIRAL Debate: Round 1:​


October 10th, 2020 (Anderson opens):

off-guardian.org

The Great VIRAL Debate: Dr Anderson’s Opening Statement

Dr Piers Robinson is our Chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition to be debated is: SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immun…
off-guardian.org off-guardian.org

October 17th, 2020 (Rancourt rebuttals):

off-guardian.org

Great VIRAL Debate: Round 1: Dr Rancourt’s First Response

We kick off Round One of The Great VIRAL Debate, following on from Opening Statements. Our participants, Drs Anderson and Rancourt, will now take turns responding to one another. Dr Piers Robinson …
off-guardian.org off-guardian.org

October 18th, 2020 (Anderson counters):

off-guardian.org

Great VIRAL Debate: Round 1: Dr Anderson’s First Response

We kick off Round One of The Great VIRAL Debate, following on from Opening Statements. Our participants, Drs Anderson and Rancourt, will now take turns responding to one another. Dr Piers Robinson …
off-guardian.org off-guardian.org

This also includes John Ioannidis, supported by Rancourt by his references, and Anderson does not like that:

The third problem is his cherry picking of scientific estimates. All the scientific reports (including Ioannidis, on whom Denis relies) admit a large degree of uncertainty over many aspects of COVID-19. That means we should have regard to the range of scientific estimates on COVID IFRs. I did that in my opening, citing a range of 0.2% to 1.3%, with a consensus of between 0.5% and 1%. The seasonal flu IFR is commonly said to be about 0.1%.

In substance, Denis relies for his ‘no worse than a flu’ argument on Ioannidis, corroborated by some correspondence he had with an academic friend, Joseph Audie. He also claims the Washington based CDC revised its estimates in September to fit in with Ioannidis. Yet Denis does not report these cherry picked sources accurately.

John Ioannidis is a scientist who (with colleagues including Jay Bhattacharya) has engaged in political lobbying of the Trump administration since mid-March, to prevent a ‘lockdown’, based on his ‘relatively harmless’ view vs likely economic damage. Several of his arguments are now touted by Trump (see Stephanie Lee).
Click to expand...

​

Seems to me, on the surface, Anderson is not happy about Trump and leans on Rancourt for Ioannidis's behind the scenes work. Will have to read all three and cross reference, yet other may want to pull on the argument threads. It does not seem like the debate is over.



​

 
I am continously amazed just how obvious it is that German journalism has completely ceased to question anything and from what I've read so far, is simply a propaganda tool.
We now have articles that are supposed to teach people how to deal with "Corona deniers" and how they should approach people in public who refuse to wear the mask. Here is a translation of one of these articles:

_„Es geht nicht darum, jemanden von deiner Meinung zu überzeugen“

"It's not about convincing someone of your opinion"
Tobias Gralke from Kleiner Fünf explains by means of concrete situations how to deal with people who don't wear a mask, want to hug everyone or deny Corona.

Interview by Lina Wölfel

How can you tell a stranger on the train that he is not wearing his mask properly? Or how do you react when conspiracy theories are spread at a family party? Tobias Gralke is 29 years old, works as a trainer, speaker, moderator, author and lecturer in the cultural sector, in political education, in democracy research and is part of Kleiner Fünf. The initiative is committed to democracy, political participation and respectful exchange in society.
The masked grouch in the train

now: Tobias, a stranger in the train is not wearing his mask (correct) How do I best point this out to him?

Tobias Gralke: The situation in the train has the advantage that your counterpart might not get off immediately. That means, especially if you can't overcome yourself immediately, you have time to prepare yourself for the conversation. For example, you can think of a first sentence and take a deep breath. It is then advisable to approach the person in a calm and friendly manner.

A conversation could start with something like: "Good afternoon, I see you are not wearing a mask. I would ask you to put on the mask to reduce the risk of infection for everyone".

When I ask him about this, he argues that the corona virus is no worse than a harmless flu. When I try to respond with statistics, he says that numbers and the situation would not justify such disproportionate measures. How can I deal with this?

When he says he thinks the measures are disproportionate, he means wearing a mask at the time. You can respond to this reluctance by asking him personally why he does not want to wear a mask. You can also communicate that wearing a mask is exhausting for you, but that you want to protect yourself and, above all, other people. You can then try to make him understand that wearing a mask is disproportionate to the possible risks of infection with the virus.

He compares the wearing of masks with popular obedience in dictatorships.

You can contradict this calmly and firmly, but you should come back to the subject afterwards. Stick to the specific subject, namely that he does not want to wear the mask.

Does that mean that you should meet him with understanding?

The question is what you want to and can achieve in this situation. You want him to put on his mask. He probably won't if he is immediately forced into a defensive position. So it can help to establish a common ground on which you can then move on to concrete criticism. Of course, the situation can also quickly change. And since the train is not the best environment for a differentiated discussion, you should focus more on the factual contradiction than on showing understanding at all costs.


The relative who works in the care sector

Second example: a relative who works as a nurse in a rehabilitation clinic tells us that she has had deaths because general health checks were not carried out because of the corona crisis and because medication was wrongly adjusted. That is her experience, which I find hard to refute, isn't it?

In such a situation, it is a good idea to show empathy and acknowledge the problems mentioned above. At this point, your own experiences with similar situations, or questions about the situations she mentioned, can build a bridge.

I show her empathy, but I notice that I do not share her general attitude towards the pandemic and the consequences she draws from her experiences. And then?

You should ask what concrete conclusions she draws from it.

For example: "Do you therefore think that the Corona measures are generally wrong?"

Then you can continue asking what suggestions she has for improving the situation in the clinic or what she would like the politicians to do. Asking questions is very important in such discussions. That way you prevent two fronts from forming directly. And you can find out what the concrete problem is and deal with it.

What if she says that she doesn't know anyone who is affected ?

You should not deny her this perception, but you should make it clear that her subjective perception does not correspond to the statistically measurable, social reality and threat situation.

The girlfriend who wants to hug you

It is easier if I don't know the person or only know them remotely. How can I react if a friend wants to hug me when we meet, but I don't want to?

At this point it is about your relationship and how you deal with personal boundaries. In this concrete situation, the reason for the drawing of boundaries is not your relationship, but the global state of emergency caused by the pandemic and that you perceive this state of emergency differently.

You can then say, for example, "I would also like to hug you, but we don't know if we are infectious. The risk is too high for me, I hope you understand that".

What if I find that we have different views on how to deal with the pandemic?

You should discuss why you have different views. Since you are friends, you might have a little more time to get to know each other and understand your perspectives. You can then think together about what solution is available for you. So, whether you don't see each other anymore, or whether you think up a common Corona greeting or prefer to meet via video messenger. It can also help in friendships to address the emotional level. For example, by revealing that you are disappointed or angry that she does not respect your boundaries.


The conspiracy theorist at the family reunion

It is even more difficult if the statements are made in a context that forbids one to argue: At a family party, an uncle expresses his displeasure at the fact that only the same scientists* and politicians* appear in the media and speaks in this context of so-called mainstream media that falsify the figures and that Corona is an instrument of power of the elites to reduce the world population. How can I make my opinion clear without ruining the party?

In this situation, you have to pay attention and respond on two levels: one is the family celebration, i.e. the framework in which the conversation takes place. The other is that the uncle mixes up some, sometimes anti-Semitic conspiracy stories ("global threatening elite"). First of all, you should contradict him calmly but firmly, to mark a boundary and send a signal to the other guests. You can then offer the uncle to change the subject for the moment and continue the conversation once you are among yourselves.

Example: "Stop. I have to contradict your statement. You are just throwing a lot of topics into one pot that have nothing to do with each other. You also use anti-Semitic images, I don't accept that. But would you like to talk about this again later in private?"

What is the best way to approach the conversation with your uncle?

It is probably not a realistic goal to try to convince him of your opinion. Especially with people who have a closed, conspiracy ideological view of the world, a massive counter-argument does not make sense because it only reinforces their view of the world. One approach for you would be to question your uncle's assumptions, sow doubt and give him food for thought. To begin with, concentrate on one or two statements or linguistic images.

For example: "You spoke earlier about the media and said that you thought they were all lying and in cahoots. But do you really believe that all media from BILD to RTL and ARD/ZDF to Arte all work together? They have completely different editorial offices and target groups?

It is important that you do not repeat your uncle's conspiracy ideological images, in this case "mainstream media", but use your own terms. You can also ask him what his sources actually are and question their trustworthiness. Perhaps they have been known to be misleading in the past or they completely blank out certain aspects of a topic.

Just ask your uncle about it: "Do you know that these sources have already been classified as untrustworthy in the past?

This is where the principle of "radical politeness" comes into play, which plays a central role in both your books.

Exactly, this applies to all situations we have discussed here: The point is to manage conflicts objectively, by limiting what you are actually talking about, and to clearly contradict discriminatory, anti-human or anti-democratic statements without becoming personal. Determined in the matter, respectful in tone.
Click to expand...
 
The italian pathologic government has done a wonderful job in brainwashing people's minds, about a few days ago the emergency status has been extended till 31st January 2021 (as I was expecting), now you are forced to have with you the mask in your pocket once stepping outside otherwise you risk to get a fine between € 400,00 to € 1000,00, wearing masks even home are strongly recommended, no more than 6 people can gather inside small spaces, the restaurants and bars will have to close earlier blah, blah, blah

What really amazed me to my core is people around me, outside 9 out of 10 people are wearing masks outside, again as back in march, at work people are more defiant towards those that aren't buying this BS, like two days ago i was smoking outside, saw one of my colleagues that was going to light a sigarette, I've approached her to help her light the sigarette when she saw me she backed off 2 meters away from me explaining that we should be careful because of the circumstances and all that BS, i didn't felt any negative emotions towards her though I've felt a strong pressure over my heart feeling sorry for her.

To another colleague who I thought was ready to open her mind regarding what's really going on with this covid-1984 business, 5 days ago I've pointed out to her about how ridiculous all this situation is, the danger of wearing face masks and so on, it seemed she was getting it, 5 days later the government scares the sh*t out of people by faking the increasing the contagion numbers and when I saw this girl yesterday at work I've noticed that she was trying to keep the distance from others, wearing the mask all the time almost, so basically she caved in to the BS and completelydismissed everythingI've pointed to her a few days ago, once again I've felt that huge pressure over my heart and a sense of sadness. With those at work who criticized me for not wearing properly the mask (most of the time I'm wearing it under my nose thus I'm breathing through my nose) I've started avoiding them and they are avoiding me.

I know that everyone has his/her lessons to learn and are making choices accordingly but still i find it pretty difficult to find myself surrounded by people at work that are beginning to behave as zombies, that's really disheartening.

As I've written earlier it seems that no amount of truth will open the eyes of these people. How long it will take for these people to snitch to gestapo those that aren't like them, that is, sleeping zombies? I've reached the point that I'm keeping going to work well only because I have to earn a living otherwise I would avoid going outside except for emergency reasons because once you step outside those sleeping zombies are looking at you as being their worst enemy and in fact that may be true to some extent. The coming months will be a real challenge that's for sure.
 
Voyageur said:
Was sent this video of a member of parliament (Canada) asking a question related to the request from the government to build Internment Covid Quarantine Camps in Ontario. Well, the video is real enough, and the chap (glad he asked) received a mumbo jumbo response back, of course; changing the subjects context.

The 'Letter of Interest' only looks to a 1600 bed facility, assuming this is the only one. However if the gov. was serious of moving from Letters of Interest to contract, a multiplier could easily be assigned based on design.

Most provinces already have massive mining, oil and gas and construction camps built in the North, yet I'm getting ahead of myself.

Click to expand...

Judged on the video alone the government representative that was questioned about these camps clearly didn't answer the question. He instead answered with another fact that people quarantined themselves when they came from another country and such for 2 Weeks in their homes. Which everyone knows. He did neither address the camps themselves nor the serious questions about their purpose. He just ignored the question completely instead in typical political talk fashion and diverted to another subject (the two weeks self-quarantine practice). Having said that, I haven't checked the validity of the claim itself yet and the video. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true though. Wonder (if true) how many other countries are planning to establish similar camps "because of Covid"?
 
And here's Sweden in the news: Sweden has changed its strategy to fight COVID-19 due to increased morbidity

1551447390_0:192:2958:1856_1600x0_80_0_0_a334c776ad1ab8fea620eb5dc693674c.jpg.webp


The Swedish authorities have changed their strategy to combat COVID-19 due to increased morbidity, writes The Daily Mail.
It is noted that the country, which during the first wave of the pandemic, unlike other European countries did not impose broad restrictions, now has to introduce local quarantine measures.
The new rules, which should come into force on Monday, will allow regional health authorities to ask citizens to avoid public places and impose restrictions on the use of public transport.
At the same time, it is indicated that the new rules will be proposed as recommendations rather than requirements, and Swedish authorities do not plan to impose fines for their failure to comply.
As the publication notes, epidemiologists have closely monitored the situation in Sweden throughout the pandemic due to its refusal to introduce national isolation. However, the fact that since September the number of illnesses in the country began to grow, shows that the hopes of the Swedish authorities to form a collective immunity have not been met.
According to WHO, more than 103 thousand cases of COVID-19 infection were registered in Sweden. About six thousand people died.

Source:Swedish to bring in local lockdowns as coronavirus cases rise
 
Source (Dutch only): Kritiek op coronabeleid wordt steeds vaker huis-aan-huis verspreid

NOS News - Interior - Today, 09:36 am

Criticism of corona policy is increasingly being spread door-to-door


1280x720a.jpg

Image NOS


In recent months, leaflets and magazines have fallen on the door mat of thousands of people, contesting official information about corona. Critical noises and conspiracy theories have been finding their way into alternative online media for some time now, but the circulation of these new paper initiatives seems larger than ever before.

For example, the May edition of De Andere Krant [The Other Newspaper] counted 500,000 copies. And the brand new magazine Gezond Verstand [Common Sense/Sanity, or Healthy Mind] claims to have distributed 1 million copies of its first edition.

Last week a commotion arose when a member of parliament from GroenLinks tweeted that the magazine was being distributed via the daily De Limburger. This turned out to be wrong, it probably just happened to be delivered at the same time. What do we know about these alternative media? Six questions and answers:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316289660658888704

What comes through the mailbox?

* De Andere Krant has existed since 2018 and reported on chemtrails, alternative medicine and the 'true' circumstances of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001. Sander Compagner of the KnowledgeMatters foundation is supposed to be the initiator. One of the sponsors of De Andere Krant is known: the successful organic farmer Hugo Jansen from Ossendrecht. He was the guarantor when the foundation was founded in 2018, in case a crowdfunding campaign wouldn't yield enough. NRC revealed [in Dutch] that the newspaper disseminates Russian disinformation. Currently, the newspaper's website promotes the new magazine Gezond Verstand.

* Gezond Verstand, of which the first issue was published at the end of September, is due to appear every two weeks. Initiator is former NRC correspondent Karel Van Wolferen. One million copies are said to have been printed and the magazine was distributed throughout the country. On the magazine's website it says that it will be available as from 28 October at Bruna en Ako [two well known Dutch distribution chains].

* Flyers criticizing the corona policy: an initiative of Bezorgde Burgers [Concerned Citizens], stating that the PCR test does not work well, that hydroxychloroquine with zinc is a 'safe and proven medicine' and that the lockdown 'does not help against the corona crisis'. In the flyer, reference is made to Karel Van Wolferen, the initiator of Gezond Verstand.

The NCTV warned this week about De Blauwe Tijger, what role does this publisher play?

The National Coordinator for Counterterrorism warned on Thursday in his latest threat analysis [in Dutch] for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. He specifically points to the role of the Stichting De Blauwe Tijger [Blue Tiger Foundation], "an ultra-conservative publisher" which is regarded as a conduit for anti-government propaganda, fake news and conspiracy theories.

The flyers of the Concerned Citizens refer readers to Blue Tiger Studio, part of the publisher. In one of the studio's talk shows Karel Van Wolferen talked about his new magazine Gezond Verstand in August. And in the first edition of the magazine, the director of the same Blue Tiger Studio was allowed to write an article about 'The agenda against the middle class'. There is also an advertisement in the magazine, of a book that was published by De Blauwe Tijger.

In the Reformatorisch Dagblad [in Dutch], Tom Zwitser, the driving force behind De Blauwe Tijger, says he finds it "very intimidating" that his publishing house appears in the threat analysis. "It's just a political decision to mention our name."

Who publishes the leaflets and magazines?

According to the initiator, Sander Compagner, De Andere Krant is published in-house. On the website of De Andere Krant, Gezond Verstand is promoted but according to Compagner his newspaper and Gezond Verstand are separate, they have different editors and different publishers. "For the first edition that has been published as a one-off in a large quantity, we have made our distribution network available. As of the second edition, Gezond Verstand will be distributed by subscriptions", he writes via Whatsapp after questions from NOS.

What does the new Healthy Mind magazine want to achieve?

In an interview [in Dutch] on the YouTube channel Café Weltschmerz, initiator Karel Van Wolferen explained at the beginning of this month what he wants to achieve with the magazine. The intention, according to Van Wolferen, is to inform readers about topics that "the mainstream media, the newspapers and TV and so on, keep undiscussed or display in a very distorted way".

In the first issue, these are subjects such as 'Anatomy of an artificial pandemic' and 'The myth of human CO2'. Van Wolferen also opposes the "CO2 madness" in the interview.

Virologist Marion Koopmans is concerned about the distribution of Healthy Mind. Koopmans is a member of the OMT [Outbrake Management Team] and has often spoken in the media in recent months about the coronavirus and the pandemic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316447004499812352

Are The Other Newspaper and Healthy Mind pro-Russian?

De Andere Krant started in 2018 with praise for President Putin and told the Russian version of the annexation of the Crimea, the war in Eastern Ukraine and the support for Syrian President Assad.

One of the editors also writes for the Russian state medium Sputnik. And NRC revealed [in Dutch] that at a newspaper symposium Aleksandr Malkevich, among others, spoke. He had previously been involved in destabilization campaigns abroad, including through the Internet Research Agency, the troll factory in St. Petersburg that played a role in the American presidential elections in 2016.

According to Ben de Jong, a researcher at Leiden University and a connoisseur of Russian intelligence services, it is a long-standing strategy of Moscow to use local media abroad for propaganda purposes. "It is best to have your disinformation spread by natives. When you looked closely at those misleading social media reports about the presidential elections in 2016, you could quickly see that the troll factory in St. Petersburg was behind it. They sometimes forgot parlance words that the Russian language doesn't know, it seemed less authentic".

"If you want to spread disinformation it's useful when it connects to something that already exists. If it comes out of nowhere, it's not so convincing. After the assassination of Kennedy, the KGB had friendly journalists write that the CIA was behind it. Why did they do that? Because a lot of people thought so anyway. That's the way it now goes too. There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the corona policy, you can hang on to that".

In Healthy Mind, it's also a lot about Russia. In the first edition the poisoning of the Russian opposition leader Navalny is discussed under the heading 'The Navalny assassination fantasy'. There is no evidence of electoral fraud in Belarus by the Russian-born president Lukashenko, the magazine further explains.

How are alternative media paid for?

De Andere Krant and Gezond Verstand distinguish themselves by their large circulation. That costs a lot of money. NRC journalists who investigated De Andere Krant, heard from Sander Compagner in 2018 that a circulation of the free newspaper, then only 50,000 copies, cost 6500 euros. The much larger print runs probably cost a multiple of that.

The printing costs are not yet recouped with subscriptions. The money now comes from "a number of sponsors", says Karel Van Wolferen at Café Weltschmerz. "They have shown an interest in what I've done, and what we're effectively doing together now over the past few years".

Whether Russia supports the magazines financially is not known. According to Van Wolferen, Gezond Verstand is not a foundation "that relies on NGOs or is supported by any government whatsoever". However, if foreign powers wanted to donate anonymously, they easily could do so through accounts in the Netherlands. "But we don't know that," says Ben de Jong. "If the Russians help to pay, it will be difficult to trace. That almost always goes via via."

When the NOS called Van Wolferen, he said he didn't have time to answer questions because he is "very busy with the second issue".


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom