O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

I'm not so sure about that rA. I understand the sentiment, but if you have faith in the vaccine then it shouldn't be the case, save for new variants and vaccination expiry. Non vaxxers are an issue (whatever their reasons for opting out, be it willful or through ignorance) but if MA's figures are reflected across the globe, then the non vaxxer issue may be quite literally dying out.

Its interesting to see how the issue is being dealt with in US professional sport, where - in NBA, for example - a star player like Kyrie Irving has been sidelined for refusal to vaccinate, and similarly in the NFL Cole Beasley is largely inactive for the same reasons.

I really don't know how it should be handled, but "boycotting the non vaxxers" does seem to be a rising trend which I'm not absolutley sure I approve of.

On the subject of the value of scientific research, I note that scientists have now discovered that dolphins in waters off the west coast of Wales spek (whistle) "with a Welsh accent". Good to see that not every scientific endeavour is for a useful purpose

Sorry GP...I obviously didn’t make myself clear.
I wasn’t talking about the ‘non vaxxers’ who, as a group, I have little time for except in the most exceptional of circumstances.
My point was that MA describes the ‘areas where new cases are highest are the poorest areas of the 4 large cities...’
He goes on to suggest additional factors, but I am just saying that poverty and overcrowding are frequently synonymous all around the world from inner cities to shanty towns.
Overcrowding provides precisely the conditions that the virus thrives in and at the moment the air of complacency, which I sense all around us at present, needs to be replaced by one of urgency to ensure the poorest in society have access to and receive their vaccines.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You appear to be suggesting that we need to alleviate global poverty and inequality in order to win the war on COVID - please correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that your objective is not merely to wrd off COVID, but is far more deep rooted, but... Anyway, good luck with that one. Idealistic thinking at best. Castles in the air at worst.

COVID may be a global problem, but this god forsaken planet has many more problems to face in the future which align with extinction. The climate and environmental issues would I fear be made far worse by resolving these poverty and inequality issues - levelling everyone up will simply lead to more extremes of energy consumption and raping of he world's limited resources.

The reality of it is that there are simply way too many people for the planet to sustain as currently set up. Levelling people up will simply break the camel's back sooner - even if it could be achieved, which is extremely remote. There is an argument that COVID would have done us all (humanity) a long term favour if it had wiped out a billion or two people (unless of course you happened to be one of them). But setting aside personal issues, the planet needs cleansing: medical science has quite possibly not done us any favours.

I see the future of the planet very differently to you I fear: I don't see any of the levelling up, but rather resource wars and deterioration in the environment until the human race is exterminated. I just hope that what of the wrecked planet is left has the capability to slowly recover and support whatever has survived.

On which cheery note I will return to work

[ramAnag]

You appear to be suggesting that we need to alleviate global poverty and inequality in order to win the war on COVID - please correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that your objective is not merely to wrd off COVID, but is far more deep rooted, but... Anyway, good luck with that one. Idealistic thinking at best. Castles in the air at worst.

COVID may be a global problem, but this god forsaken planet has many more problems to face in the future which align with extinction. The climate and environmental issues would I fear be made far worse by resolving these poverty and inequality issues - levelling everyone up will simply lead to more extremes of energy consumption and raping of he world's limited resources.

The reality of it is that there are simply way too many people for the planet to sustain as currently set up. Levelling people up will simply break the camel's back sooner - even if it could be achieved, which is extremely remote. There is an argument that COVID would have done us all (humanity) a long term favour if it had wiped out a billion or two people (unless of course you happened to be one of them). But setting aside personal issues, the planet needs cleansing: medical science has quite possibly not done us any favours.

I see the future of the planet very differently to you I fear: I don't see any of the levelling up, but rather resource wars and deterioration in the environment until the human race is exterminated. I just hope that what of the wrecked planet is left has the capability to slowly recover and support whatever has survived.

On which cheery note I will return to work

I was attempting to clarify...not look for an argument, and I sympathise with some of what you say.

We were however discussing Covid, not the alleviation of ‘global poverty’ which I haven’t mentioned, and - imo - nothing is more true than ‘none of us are safe until all of us are safe’. This maxim needs to be urgently applied to the poor throughout the World for the benefit of all, again imo.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I was attempting to clarify...not look for an argument, and I sympathise with some of what you say.

We were however discussing Covid, not the alleviation of ‘global poverty’ which I haven’t mentioned, and - imo - nothing is more true than ‘none of us are safe until all of us are safe’. This maxim needs to be urgently applied to the poor throughout the World for the benefit of all, again imo.

Who is arguing? But I must say that you have a tendency to close down debate with your "stick to the subject that I set" agenda rather than opening your mind, considering the wider picture and letting discussion flow. Do not take this the wrong way, but that is probably the teacher in you!!

[ramAnag]

Who is arguing? But I must say that you have a tendency to close down debate with your "stick to the subject that I set" agenda rather than opening your mind, considering the wider picture and letting discussion flow. Do not take this the wrong way, but that is probably the teacher in you!!

I’m just not going down the teacher route that you’re so peculiarly obsessed with. We spent hours chipping away at that one two days ago and it’s nothing but a childish and futile waste of everyone’s time.
It’s a Covid thread which I didn’t start...on which we were discussing a Covid related post started by MA...so I have absolutely no idea how I’m setting the agenda.
You decided I was campaigning to ‘alleviate global poverty and inequality’...I’d not mentioned them.

[MadAmster]

You appear to be suggesting that we need to alleviate global poverty and inequality in order to win the war on COVID - please correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that your objective is not merely to wrd off COVID, but is far more deep rooted, but... Anyway, good luck with that one. Idealistic thinking at best. Castles in the air at worst.

COVID may be a global problem, but this god forsaken planet has many more problems to face in the future which align with extinction. The climate and environmental issues would I fear be made far worse by resolving these poverty and inequality issues - levelling everyone up will simply lead to more extremes of energy consumption and raping of he world's limited resources.

The reality of it is that there are simply way too many people for the planet to sustain as currently set up. Levelling people up will simply break the camel's back sooner - even if it could be achieved, which is extremely remote. There is an argument that COVID would have done us all (humanity) a long term favour if it had wiped out a billion or two people (unless of course you happened to be one of them). But setting aside personal issues, the planet needs cleansing: medical science has quite possibly not done us any favours.

I see the future of the planet very differently to you I fear: I don't see any of the levelling up, but rather resource wars and deterioration in the environment until the human race is exterminated. I just hope that what of the wrecked planet is left has the capability to slowly recover and support whatever has survived.

On which cheery note I will return to work

A lot to agree with there.

There are too many people on earth to be able to keep them all happy.

We probably grow/breed enough food to give everybody what they NEED. Unfortunately, not enough to give everybody what they WANT. Most definitely a lot of it is produced 100s of miles away from where it's NEEDED and getting it there is a logistics nightmare, or would be if the rest of us were willing to send what we don't need to the poorly accessible places that do need it before it rots.

We need to slow down population growth. Actually we need to change it to population decline. The problem with that is that it would deny "the 1%" of their greedy demand for constant growth in the "economy" that keeps them rich and increases the value of their shares and the level of dividend they receive. The greedy aren't interested in sustainable futures as they are only interested in themselves being at the top of the tree and, with them, their children. They seem to miss that doing so will see their families embroiled in vicious conflicts not too far down the road.

The daftest thing is that when somebody floats an idea that would either keep the population levels at their current ones and maybe even reduce them a little, they get called out as inciting murder/genocide by the "alternative thinkers".

Reduce child mortality through vaccinations said Gates. He went on to explain that reduced child mortality tends to morph into parents having less children as they don't need to have so many to guarantee that there will be enough of their kids left to look after the parents in their old age. Perfectly reasonable and accurate thing to say. What happens? The "alternates" accuse him of mass murder!

I'm actually shocked that the "alternates" haven't gone berserk online over the Malaria vaccine announced last week. Kids will get 4 doses and it is expected that it will save around half of the annual 400,000 deaths malaria causes. The silence from those quarters is deafening.

Another thing the "alternates" forget is that the Covid vaccine isn't 100% efficient in stopping you getting infected. It does protect most against infection and greatly reduces the chance of needing hospital/ICU treatment. I heard the Dutch head of ICU care yesterday say that a non-vaccinated person has 33 times more chance of needing ICU treatment than a vaccinated person once infected. Add in the fact that you are less likely to get infected in the first place following inoculation and you see the huge benefits of Covid vaccination. They also cite the side effects as a major issue...... I've said it before, there isn't a medicine or vaccine without side effects. Just read the leaflet inside any medicine package. The list is long but the vast majority of people don't have any issues.

[Geoff Parkstone]

A lot to agree with there.

There are too many people on earth to be able to keep them all happy.

We probably grow/breed enough food to give everybody what they NEED. Unfortunately, not enough to give everybody what they WANT. Most definitely a lot of it is produced 100s of miles away from where it's NEEDED and getting it there is a logistics nightmare, or would be if the rest of us were willing to send what we don't need to the poorly accessible places that do need it before it rots.

We need to slow down population growth. Actually we need to change it to population decline. The problem with that is that it would deny "the 1%" of their greedy demand for constant growth in the "economy" that keeps them rich and increases the value of their shares and the level of dividend they receive. The greedy aren't interested in sustainable futures as they are only interested in themselves being at the top of the tree and, with them, their children. They seem to miss that doing so will see their families embroiled in vicious conflicts not too far down the road.

The daftest thing is that when somebody floats an idea that would either keep the population levels at their current ones and maybe even reduce them a little, they get called out as inciting murder/genocide by the "alternative thinkers".

Reduce child mortality through vaccinations said Gates. He went on to explain that reduced child mortality tends to morph into parents having less children as they don't need to have so many to guarantee that there will be enough of their kids left to look after the parents in their old age. Perfectly reasonable and accurate thing to say. What happens? The "alternates" accuse him of mass murder!

I'm actually shocked that the "alternates" haven't gone berserk online over the Malaria vaccine announced last week. Kids will get 4 doses and it is expected that it will save around half of the annual 400,000 deaths malaria causes. The silence from those quarters is deafening.

Another thing the "alternates" forget is that the Covid vaccine isn't 100% efficient in stopping you getting infected. It does protect most against infection and greatly reduces the chance of needing hospital/ICU treatment. I heard the Dutch head of ICU care yesterday say that a non-vaccinated person has 33 times more chance of needing ICU treatment than a vaccinated person once infected. Add in the fact that you are less likely to get infected in the first place following inoculation and you see the huge benefits of Covid vaccination. They also cite the side effects as a major issue...... I've said it before, there isn't a medicine or vaccine without side effects. Just read the leaflet inside any medicine package. The list is long but the vast majority of people don't have any issues.

Population growth really is a huge issue that defines mankind's future. I heard on the radio this morning that British birthrates continue to fall and are below 2, which mirrors experiences seen in many developed countries across the world. At the same time global population spirals upwards with births being double deaths. Another interesting observation was that 30% of UK births were to mothers not born in the UK: my flabber was really ghasted at that statistic, not that it really matters what the child's provenance is.

So populations in the "wealth creating" economies continues to fall, that in the economies needing growth continues to soar. So where is that economic growth going to come from? Multinationals can and do arbitrage this differential, but only for so long as it is to their financial advantage. As soon as they can make more money elsewhere, they move on, leaving the previous partner back in the ****, Thus the low population high wealth countries continue to advance, and the high population low wealth countries subside: and revert to high birthrates to secure the parent generations future.

This leaves the have nots dependent on the charity of the haves, and this is never going to be sufficient to support an ever growing cohort of have nots.

Mother nature had a way of dealing with this - disease and warfare, as Thomas Malthus recognised over 200 years ago. But "we" knew better and have eliminated the population moderation effects of these factors. Even lemmings understand the scenario better than we do

[Trickytreesreds]

GP, that is well written.
I feel the same. The world population continues to spiral out of control and these "ghettos" and over crowding in cities is only getting worse, not better.
There is already a mass exodus, of those trying to grab a better life in Europe and America and how long before this turns ugly?
Fuel/water/land/air are all in decline.
Batten down the hatches, because an evening up of resources is impossible.
The costs/upward spiral of demands will be unachievable.
Predation of man was overcome milleniums ago. Diseases solved, longevity prolonged.
All I hear is more more people needed, aging population etc, so we keep moving, using more and more.
Only ends one way. Daft as it seems, if the 2 world wars hadn't occurred, how far further along would our demise be?

[Andy_Faber]

I'm with Geep ad TTR BUT think humanity will be saved by good old survival of the fittest/most affluent

[ramAnag]

I'm with Geep ad TTR BUT think humanity will be saved by good old survival of the fittest/most affluent

Lol...of course you are. Still, I’d be (genuinely) interested to learn how you equate the survival of the fittest ethos with Christianity.