Coronavirus Discussion

[Raikielia]

4 hours ago, ValidEmotions said:

And, even if AngelsSin's words had emotions behind them, it makes them no less logical/rational.

 

Exactly. Saying someone is 'too emotional' is often used to try and invalidate what they're saying. #late

Edited May 3, 2020 by Raikielia

[Daydreamer09]

I didn't get a chance to mention it earlier when I read the news article, but apparently Friday in my state (Ohio) a news reporter was getting harassed by a lockdown protester at the capital building. The reporter kept trying to keep a distance from this lady, reminding her about social distancing, but she just kept walking up and yelling. The article I think really highlights how people protesting right now don't trust the news, even if it's local.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/495709-woman-browbeats-reporter-for-wearing-a-mask-at-ohio-lockdown-protest

 

There're also people protesting outside of Ohio's Health Department Director's house. 😬

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/small-group-protests-ohio-coronavirus-restrictions-outside-health-department-director-dr-amy-actons-house.html

 

Can I move to Mars now?

[Nine]

5 hours ago, AngelsSin said:

Frankly that comment was such a typical male thing to say, just saying.

 

Did no one else notice this, lol.

 

8 hours ago, KrazyKarp said:

ultimately I'm just sick of seeing high-emotion arguments on a topic that's more scientific and logical

 

Human diseases/mortality are one of those topics that a lot of people can't not take personally-- like human overpopulation. Looking at it from a more neutral, scientific perspective is often seen as unethical and taboo, a personal affront to anybody reading it. Humans are unsurprisingly biased about humans. Add in politics and people act as volatile as potassium and water.

 

It's important to ask uncomfortable questions though, just as it's important to teach and share information without condescension or revile. I hope nobody reads this thread and feels intimidated to ask questions.

[KrazyKarp]

5 hours ago, AngelsSin said:

First off this is the only portion directed at you. Perhaps I should have put more space between portions of my post or made a note so you didn't misunderstand me.

Second, my post was  certainly not overly emotional I feel you misinterpreted my post. Frankly that comment was such a typical male thing to say, just saying. I was simply giving you information on why what you said was wrong. You took it out of context and blew it up. Third do not take the fact that I bolded certain words to be overly emotional. Like how can you even know what I was feeling in the moments that I wrote my post. (For the record I was actually feeling good and happy so I find it hard to see what you apparently did, certainly I didn't put any malice into what I wrote. There was some disgust I was feeling but that is all.)  I bolded certain words to symbolize if I was verbally talking I would place emphasis on certain words that I felt were important and wanted to place stress on. That wasn't me being emotional. Nor do I see any lack of logic to what I said. If it's there please feel free to point it out. Next I easily could have used harsher language and frankly would feel justified in using it but I didn't I used words like selfish and arrogant entitled I don't see how that translates to being harsh or nasty. Just telling it how I see it. I was not picking a fight with you. Or anyone. But if I get sick from someone who feels the ways I described in my post then you bet i will get emotional. 

Then I misinterpreted your tone, and for that I'm sorry. I took the "you" as directed towards me, rather than a general you, which was my issue, as well as misunderstanding your italics and bold. I hope you'll forgive my misunderstanding!

Though I greatly dislike you saying that what I said is a "typical male thing". Generalizing an entire gender like that is not ok, no matter what gender. That's a very very bad stereotype to get into the mindset of.

 

Olympe, thank you for the information. I've read about some scientists discuss that herd immunity is the way to go, which is why I was on board with it, because they seem so certain it will help. Unfortunately, if you're correct in saying we won't get a vaccine for another couple years, I highly doubt quarantining people will hold up for that long no matter what side anyone is on. I can't see enough people wanting to work with that for so long.

 

Also Astreya, the German polls are pretty interesting. The fact that it seems older people are more against the quarantine than younger people. I also wonder if shops will start to see more business as the weeks march onward, if they do stay open?

Edited May 4, 2020 by KrazyKarp

[Astreya]

57 minutes ago, KrazyKarp said:

Also Astreya, the German polls are pretty interesting. The fact that it seems older people are more against the quarantine than younger people. I also wonder if shops will start to see more business as the weeks march onward, if they do stay open?

At first I was a bit surprised that the younger people are more favourable to the lockdown, too. But then it occurred to me that the age group 14-29 means they are likely pupils and students, who are probably less affected by a possible loss of job or livelihood, while the age group 45-59 is probably one with the highest percentage of people in employment (who might now be furloughed) or owning a business, thus more affected by the lockdown.

 

I saw an interview with one guy from a large furniture store who said that they could as well close again as the low number of customers caused him more cost (for the employees) than closing it again (when he'd only need to pay reduced working hours, while the government tops it up).

 

I'm really curious how things will develop.

 

By the way, in my home town, the confirmed Covid-19 cases continually went down during the last days (from a maximum of 92 to as low as 34) until Thursday when a new cluster in a senior care home was reported with 14 elderly and 5 carers affected. If you look at such cases, it only needs one careless carer (no pun intended) who would then carry the virus into a most vulnerable population. With the current numbers, it is likely that one fifth of the infected seniors might die.

 

The problem with easing the lockdown means, that there is a bigger chance that young and healthy persons who care for vulnerable groups might catch the virus and  infect these after all, even when one tries to only lock the vulnerable population up - and when you get such a cluster, you will likely get a cluster of fatalities, too.

 

So you can't simply say okay, lock the vulnerable people away and let the healthy people just encounter the virus in hopes that they will just weather the infection with little problems. Young people have to interact with vulnerable groups, too, and then you get into problems.

 

Additionally, it seems that SARS-CoV-2 affects the human body in numerous ways that are researched and still little understood. If you are interested in this, you might want to take a look at this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/how-is-this-possible-researchers-grapple-with-covid-19s-mysterious-mechanism

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Astreya
I hate typos

[Daydreamer09]

38 minutes ago, Nine said:

Did no one else notice this, lol.

Yep. I wasn't really sure how to bring it up though with things getting heated. Saying 'that's typical male' is just as bad as saying 'typical woman'. Can we just avoid gender stereotypes, guys?

 

34 minutes ago, Nine said:

Human diseases/mortality are one of those topics that a lot of people can't not take personally-- like human overpopulation. Looking at it from a more neutral, scientific perspective is often seen as unethical and taboo, a personal affront to anybody reading it. Humans are unsurprisingly biased about humans. Add in politics and people act as volatile as potassium and water.

 

It's important to ask uncomfortable questions though, just as it's important to teach and share information without condescension or revile. I hope nobody reads this thread and feels intimidated to ask questions.

 

Seconded. For myself, I understand that not everyone thinks with their heart first and not everyone thinks with their head first. Some people are more focused on others and some are more focused on logical statistics. That doesn't mean that the former's irrational nor the latter's heartless, it's just there's different ways people look at problems.

[Fuzzbucket]

9 hours ago, Raikielia said:

Exactly. Saying someone is 'too emotional' is often used to try and invalidate what they're saying. #late

 

Very much agree with this. And - I don't think it is sexist to point out that it was men who invented the idea of the hysterical emotional woman ruled by her hormones. Our views are invalid  when we are menstruating, and all that stuff. You get it in offices to this day; a woman criticises something in a meeting and the men roll their eyes and say "must be PMT, right ?" (I used to enjoy pointing out that I had had a hysterectomy years before and so no, it wasn't ! It would floor them, as they never actually understood PMT anyway - it was just something used to diss women with when they had no valid argument to counter what had been said.) Not to mention the concept of penis envy - we are all believed to want to be men really. It's sad - but it is endemic in many areas, and can't be ignored.

 

But in this thread some of the MOST dismissive comments have come from women, so I am not for one moment saying that it's men being awful here. Just that that kind of remark is usually made by men.As AngelsSin said.

 

8 hours ago, Nine said:

Human diseases/mortality are one of those topics that a lot of people can't not take personally-- like human overpopulation. Looking at it from a more neutral, scientific perspective is often seen as unethical and taboo, a personal affront to anybody reading it. Humans are unsurprisingly biased about humans. Add in politics and people act as volatile as potassium and water.

 

It's important to ask uncomfortable questions though, just as it's important to teach and share information without condescension or revile. I hope nobody reads this thread and feels intimidated to ask questions.

 

Absolutely this. And people are scared, which doesn't help  us to keep calm.

 

7 hours ago, Astreya said:

At first I was a bit surprised that the younger people are more favourable to the lockdown, too. But then it occurred to me that the age group 14-29 means they are likely pupils and students, who are probably less affected by a possible loss of job or livelihood, while the age group 45-59 is probably one with the highest percentage of people in employment (who might now be furloughed) or owning a business, thus more affected by the lockdown.

 

Also science was not very well taught in schools when older people were in education. I am old myself; I went to good schools, but I am acutely aware that much of the factual info coming out  about the virus is nothing like anything I was taught in school. I am lucky that I have medical people in the family and worked in public health for years - but a lot of older people simply have no idea about the science of this stuff and - not to be patronising - don't actually understand it. So when you get David Icke coming out and spouting nonsense about it being spread by 5g phone masts, they don't have the background to see instantly that it isn't actually possible. Young people are actually better informed and in this case, better educated, in that the science they did in school relates to the world was we now understand it.

 

7 hours ago, Astreya said:

 

I saw an interview with one guy from a large furniture store who said that they could as well close again as the low number of customers caused him more cost (for the employees) than closing it again (when he'd only need to pay reduced working hours, while the government tops it up).

 

I'm really curious how things will develop.

 

By the way, in my home town, the confirmed Covid-19 cases continually went down during the last days (from a maximum of 92 to as low as 34) until Thursday when a new cluster in a senior care home was reported with 14 elderly and 5 carers affected. If you look at such cases, it only needs one careless carer (no pun intended) who would then carry the virus into a most vulnerable population. With the current numbers, it is likely that one fifth of the infected seniors might die.

 

The problem with easing the lockdown means, that there is a bigger chance that young and healthy persons who care for vulnerable groups might catch the virus and  infect these after all, even when one tries to only lock the vulnerable population up - and when you get such a cluster, you will likely get a cluster of fatalities, too.

 

So you can't simply say okay, lock the vulnerable people away and let the healthy people just encounter the virus in hopes that they will just weather the infection with little problems. Young people have to interact with vulnerable groups, too, and then you get into problems.

 

Additionally, it seems that SARS-CoV-2 affects the human body in numerous ways that are researched and still little understood. If you are interested in this, you might want to take a look at this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/how-is-this-possible-researchers-grapple-with-covid-19s-mysterious-mechanism

 

 

I read that. Terrifying.

 

2 hours ago, AngelsSin said:

The truth is time will tell which of us is right where it concerns opening up and putting others at risk. 

As many have said, I hope I'm wrong but I'm afraid I'm not.

 

I've just been trying to counsel patience where it concerns opening up. It's been a relatively short time (though I know if feels longer to some) that this disease has been around in just a couple months we have learned a lot about it. And I believe/hope that it won't be much longer till they find at least an effective treatment to reduce or stop the ever increasing death toll. At which time I will have little to no objections to people opening up and getting things back to normal. As it stands I think it is extremely premature to open things up when we don't at least have a real effective treatment. While Remdesivir is promising it's not the effective treatment I feel would make it acceptable to reopen. But we are making progress in that direction. It's possible a treatment might be discovered within weeks or months. 

 

I personally would feel miserable if I ended up getting sick and survive but unknowingly pass it on to someone who ends up dying from it. I have a conscience. How could I not feel responsible if that were to happen? How can anyone not feel responsible?

 

I am not even remotely close to being perfect. I don't know anyone who is. But I do strive to improve on my faults. I am only human as we all are. But I find this disregard that some have for the health of others disturbing. When your right to civil liberty infringes on my and others right to not be infected with a deadly disease, to be able to continue living then your rights are infringing on my rights!   Just saying.

 

This is what I felt was behind your post and why I applauded it. And still do.

[olympe]

9 hours ago, Astreya said:

If you look at such cases, it only needs one careless carer (no pun intended) who would then carry the virus into a most vulnerable population. With the current numbers, it is likely that one fifth of the infected seniors might die.

It doesn't even have to be carelessness on the carer's part. They can catch the infection from grocery shopping, for example. And pass it on because a mask slipped or wasn't perfect. Don't forget that many senior care homes do not have access to antiviral masks, only the regular surgical masks. Which are not perfect at preventing viruses from passing. And, no, despite every measure to enforce social distancing, carers are not the only people who have "access" to the elderly in a care home and can pass it on just as well.

[Astreya]

I just heard an interview with Professor Dr.Hendrik Streeck who conducted the Heinsberg study in Germany/NRW and a little search showed that the University of Bonn published their results at the university's website. So far it is a pre-publication and the proper publication in a peer reviewed journal will follow. The highlights were added by me so one can find the most important points more easily.

 

Quote

Focus of the study is the infection fatality rate (IFR), which indicates the ratio of deaths in comparison to those infected. The IFR is different to the case fatality rate (CFR). For various reasons, the IFR is considered the more reliable parameter and there is an international demand to have a more accurate understanding of the fatality of SARS-CoV2. “For the first time, our data enables us to estimate how many people have been infected after the superspreading event. Approximately 15 percent of Gangelt had been infected. The total number of infections allows us to determine the infection fatality rate. In Gangelt, the IFR after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak is 0.37 percent,” says lead investigator Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck, Director of the Institute for Virology at the University Hospital Bonn.

 

Based on the IFR and the number of deaths, estimations about the total number of infections in similar demographic areas with different infection rates can be made. Comparing this number with the number of officially reported infections leads to an estimate of unreported cases. In Gangelt, this figure is about 5 times higher than the official number of people tested positively. With an extrapolation based on 6,700 SARS-CoV-2 associated deaths in Germany, a total of 1.8 million infections can be assumed. This number of unreported cases is about 10 times higher than the officially reported cases (162,496 on May 3rd, 2020).

(...)

“Apparently one in five infections occurs without noticeable symptoms suggests that infected persons who secrete virus and can infect others cannot be reliably identified on the basis of recognizable symptoms of the disease,” says Prof. Dr. Martin Exner, head of the Institute for Hygiene and Public Health and co-author of the study. This confirms the importance of general rules of distance and hygiene in the corona pandemic. "Every supposedly healthy person we encounter can unknowingly carry the virus. We must be aware of this and act accordingly," says the hygiene expert.

(...)

“By combining PCR and ELISA tests we are able to detect acute as well as elapsed infections,” says Prof. Hartmann. Preliminary studies showed that the ELISA test is false positive in about one percent of the cases. “However, with such high frequency of infections in Gangelt, a one percent false positive rate is not critical,” Hartmann explains. For studies planned to take place across Germany with an estimated infection rate of approximately one to two percent a one percent false positive rate pose rather a problem.

Source: https://www.uni-bonn.de/news/111-2020

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Astreya

[Daydreamer09]

8 hours ago, AngelsSin said:

There is a reason that is a stereotype and unfortunately an accurate one. 

 

So this is starting to get off topic now. But, even after reading the important points in your paragraph, I still can't agree with this sentence. There have been men who have been poets, playwrights, singers and just like many woman, have been more in touch with their emotions. Heck, I went to an art college where it's common to see young men taking sewing and fashion classes. In our day and age, you can't expect men to fit a stereotype based on archaic history from a few generations back.

 

There's a nasty flip side to your topic where women who aren't emotional ENOUGH have been outcasted by other ladies and have trouble fitting in. I've talked to several women before who would have broached the same questions in the same exact way as KrazyKarp and would have jumped to saying 'emotional outburst' as well.

 

Maybe I'm taking you a bit out of context, but believing all men are always a certain way doesn't make you any better than those who expect us to be overly emotional. Even if you feel justified by it from history.

 

Sorry if this comes off as condescending as that's far from my intention. I just believe it to be a fact that there's no real 'typical male' or 'typical female'. And assuming so will often get you proven wrong. 😓

[Fuzzbucket]

There have indeed. There have also been women with no connection to feelings - like Margaret Thatcher.

 

No-one has said all men are like this. But I have NEVER heard a woman accuse a man of being over-emotional - except together with the suggestions that the man must be gay !

Edited May 4, 2020 by Fuzzbucket
DAMNABLE autocorrect

[Daydreamer09]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

No-one has said all men are like this. But I have NEVER heard a woman accuse a man of being over-emotional - except together with the digestions that the man must be gay !

 

Uh... Well, you know the belief that men shouldn't cry? I've heard both men and women say that. The issue with men showing emotions is that it's a stigma and 'a man is not a man if he show emotions' is a thing. I think younger generations right now are shaking this stigma off thankfully.

 

Also, wanted to quote what you said about science not being taught the same when older generations went to school, but I'm on my phone which makes it hard. Anyways, science is always adding new discoveries into what kids in school are learning. I graduated in the late 00s and even I feel outsmarted by what the new generation is learning in school.

[ValidEmotions]

Sorry, going to add to the "digression". (Spoiler for those who aren't interested in it.)

Spoiler

 

AngelsSin isn't saying the stereotype is that Women are Emotional and Men are Not. They are saying the stereotype is is that (general) Men are near-constantly degrading women for being overly emotional and using that "fact" as a means to somehow justify disregarding us, to justify treating us as inferior and unintelligent and unable to be rational--therefore unable to hold positions of leadership/power, unable to present clear and good ideas, etc. However, whenever a man becomes hysterical and violent with rage, he's never degraded as "emotional". Instead, the blame shifts to a woman in the form of "oh, well she must have done something to make him so mad and I think he's justified". That's the issue.

 

Women are viewed as irrational and hysterical, but men are viewed as passionate and driven. Women are "unhinged" but men "care deeply".

 

22 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

except together with the digestions that the man must be gay !

That's really odd to me but that's only because I've never seen this occur. The only time I've seen (some) women "go after" a man for being overly hysterical, it was to point out the hypocrisy of a man throwing a tantrum in a professional setting receiving a boatload of support/defense from other men and contrasted with a woman raising her voice just slightly in an equally professional setting.

The only time's I've seen an emotional man get degraded as gay was from other men.

 

EDIT: To add in 
The "a man doesn't show emotion" really truly only pertains to a man crying. It's an awful belief that negatively impacts men's emotional growth. But men are allowed to show emotion, otherwise. They're most especially allowed to show when they are angry and too often allowed to be violent. 

 

For COVID related things:

Right now, my state has a tentative reopening set for May 15th. This was set long before the protests started across the country. However, I've come across bits of news that says people from other states are entering Nevada in order to help/support anti-lockdown protests and I??? If other people are coming from out of state just to bolster protester numbers in Nevada, then I don't think there's even a significant minority who want the lockdown lifted here in the first place. So, a lot of me is hoping that the lockdown isn't lifted/relaxed on the 15th because I'm certain it's mostly just out-of-staters who simply want to come back and gamble throughout Nevada. Or, at the very least, that the Stay At Home/Lockdown orders are adjusted so Casinos remain closed (because they're most definitely not essential).

 

And, kind of tying in: there are so many poignant images from the protestors, of the men armed to the teeth, of men and women getting in the faces of reporters or medical professional counter protestors with raging fits and threats. And it's... super emotional 🙄 But, of course, instead of using that hysterical behavior as a reason to disregard them, so many of Lockdown Removal Supporters want to continue calling them Patriots.

Edited May 4, 2020 by ValidEmotions

[Daydreamer09]

12 minutes ago, ValidEmotions said:

Sorry, going to add to the "digression". (Spoiler for those who aren't interested in it.)

  Hide contents

 

AngelsSin isn't saying the stereotype is that Women are Emotional and Men are Not. They are saying the stereotype is is that (general) Men are near-constantly degrading women for being overly emotional and using that "fact" as a means to somehow justify disregarding us, to justify treating us as inferior and unintelligent and unable to be rational--therefore unable to hold positions of leadership/power, unable to present clear and good ideas, etc. However, whenever a man becomes hysterical and violent with rage, he's never degraded as "emotional". Instead, the blame shifts to a woman in the form of "oh, well she must have done something to make him so man and I think he's justified". That's the issue.

 

Women are viewed as irrational and hysterical, but men are viewed as passionate and driven. Women are "unhinged" but men "care deeply".

That's why I said I didn't agree with the 'sentence'. She said her stereotype was accurate in which I believe there shouldn't even BE a stereotype with how varied people are (that was the reason I brought men can be in touch with their emotions and women can be more logical). KrazyKarp is typical KrazyKarp. What he said should be attributed to him, not the influence of his gender. Even with historical baggage.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Daydreamer09

[ValidEmotions]

Okay. I misinterpreted then. It read like (from my side) you believed Angels was saying "Men aren't emotional" since your main example focused on "men in touch with their emotions throughout history". (Which, ultimately, just supports the evidence of double-standards/hypocrisy of it all extends for hundreds of years.)

 

Hm there's a bit I can unpack with the "influence of his gender" because -> internal/ingrained biases. But, that's continued digression and/or better fits in.... Do we have a Sexism thread?

[Fuzzbucket]

47 minutes ago, Daydreamer09 said:

 

Uh... Well, you know the belief that men shouldn't cry? I've heard both men and women say that. The issue with men showing emotions is that it's a stigma and 'a man is not a man if he show emotions' is a thing. I think younger generations right now are shaking this stigma off thankfully.

 

Just so. "Real men don't cry".  "Women are irrational because they get PMT." I didn't say stereotypes were OK - I said they exist. They do. It's sad but they do.

 

And you're right - most young people are more civilised. (And yes there is a sexism thread....)

 

47 minutes ago, Daydreamer09 said:

 

Also, wanted to quote what you said about science not being taught the same when older generations went to school, but I'm on my phone which makes it hard. Anyways, science is always adding new discoveries into what kids in school are learning. I graduated in the late 00s and even I feel outsmarted by what the new generation is learning in school.

 

Exactly. Youngsters "get" more about all his than anyone - say over 30, even.I can't understand my grandson's math !

[olympe]

21 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Exactly. Youngsters "get" more about all his than anyone - say over 30, even.I can't understand my grandson's math !

Well, you're a little bit above 30...  Truth to be told, though, natural sciences used to be taught with as little relevance to the real world as possible. Especially physics used to be the one true ivory tower science - at least that's what old physics books and experiments for students imply. Chemistry wasn't much better, but at least things could go "boom" or stink up half the school.

[Fuzzbucket]

I know. But my age is rather extreme. Loads of people I know in their 30s can't get their heads around why a virus literally cannot be transmitted by radio waves.... (yes they know about not sneezing and covering their faces and stuff - I'm not saying they are stupid. But the idea that that CANNOT happen seems hard to grasp. A bit like the olden days of TV, when people (including my highly intelligent father, with two first class degrees from Cambridge !) really believed the TV could see you as well as you seeing it.

 

If you haven't the background, it is all hard.

 

But - my mother's care home remains covid free. A building full of very fragile old people  - my mother is going on 101 !) with full staff coming in every shift. YES I know these people are more vulnerable - but the point is that the distancing and isolation DOES protect from infection,  and IS worth doing.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Fuzzbucket

[Astreya]

Daily update for Oberhausen, NRW, Germany:

 

As of today, Monday, May 4, 10:00 GMT+2,  my home town (population 211 000) has 68 active cases (including 24 residents of the ASB senior care home and 5 carers), and 157 people have recovered.

 

All in all there have been 226 people who suffered from Covid-19 since the beginning of the pandemic including those that have recovered (7 persons were deleted from yesterday's tally as they were entered twice in the list). 9 persons are treated in hospitals (6 of them were admitted from the care home, and so far no one currently needs intensive care). 1 person sadly died.

 

200 persons are currently quarantined (including 117 persons in the care home and the 9 patients in hospitals).

 

All in all there have been 5412 Covid-19 tests in Oberhausen so far.

 

Except for the cluster in the ASB senior care home, no other care home reported any cases; structured Covid-19 tests are resumed in the other care homes. The results of all of the remaining  ASB care home residents and workers are expected tomorrow. The second ASB senior care home in an other quarter of the city will be completely tested as precaution, too.

 

Source: https://www.oberhausen.de/de/index/rathaus/verwaltung/umwelt-gesundheit-und-mobilitat/gesundheit/aktuelle_informationen/informationen_zum_coronavirus/aktuelle_meldungen.php

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Astreya

[olympe]

47 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I know. But my age is rather extreme. Loads of people I know in their 30s can't get their heads around why a virus literally cannot be transmitted by radio waves.... (yes they know about not sneezing and covering their faces and stuff - I'm not saying they are stupid. But the idea that that CANNOT happen seems hard to grasp

Well, then let me say it for you. They're stupid. How on earth are radio waves supposed to transmit viruses? How?

 

48 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

A bit like the olden days of TV, when people (including my highly intelligent father, with two first class degrees from Cambridge !) really believed the TV could see you as well as you seeing it.

That doesn't scream of intelligence, either. I mean, when I was a kid around early primary school age (6-10), I very clearly debunked that theory on my own with just a little logic. After all, if a lot of people watch a TV show, how is the moderator (or whoever) supposed to be able to see all of them? It just doesn't work. Just in case you're curious, I asked myself this question of "is it possible" because I was watching some children's show where the moderator pretended to see his audience. Figuring out that this act was pretty much a lie made me quite angry because I felt cheated, which is why I still remember this. 

[purpledragonclaw]

For future reference, yes, there is a Sexism thread where sexism topics can be discussed. It's old, but it can be revived.

 

Secondly, thank you all for getting this discussion back on track without modly intervention, and thank you for handling the discussion with civility. If I can take the time to call members out for divergence, I can take the time to thank you all for regulating yourselves and returning to the topic at hand, I appreciate it!

[Fuzzbucket]

15 minutes ago, olympe said:

Well, then let me say it for you. They're stupid. How on earth are radio waves supposed to transmit viruses? How?

 

To which they say - how can you prove they don't. When you have David Ivke saying that is what's happening - and "everyone knows" he's smart....

 

15 minutes ago, olympe said:

 

That doesn't scream of intelligence, either. I mean, when I was a kid around early primary school age (6-10), I very clearly debunked that theory on my own with just a little logic. After all, if a lot of people watch a TV show, how is the moderator (or whoever) supposed to be able to see all of them? It just doesn't work. Just in case you're curious, I asked myself this question of "is it possible" because I was watching some children's show where the moderator pretended to see his audience. Figuring out that this act was pretty much a lie made me quite angry because I felt cheated, which is why I still remember this. 

 

I know But new stuff doesn't always bring out logical responses 

[olympe]

55 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

To which they say - how can you prove they don't. When you have David Ivke saying that is what's happening - and "everyone knows" he's smart....

Waves don't usually transmit particles - unless there's a flood involved. Which is not what is happening with radio waves. Plus, why would they transmit SARS-CoV-2, but not any of the other viruses around? Because someone said so?

[Confused Cat]

§😈

Welllll, @olympe, have you actually seen a coronavirus? And even if it exists, do you know that's what causes the symptoms?

All you know is there is suddenly a new illness, and all the governments (not trustworthy!) and mainstream media (insert a certain bad word here) say it's caused by a virus, but... is that the truth?

oOOoooOOooooo.... (spooky noises, X-Files music)

We know some sorts of waves can affect tangible objects. Microwaves can melt cheese, so maybe... radio waves can affect the human body?

oooooOOOOOOOO! (dramatic music, slowly getting louder)

What if they reprogram our cells so they start spontaneously producing viruses? Computer programs can be transmitted through radio waves, and... biological viruses work just like computer viruses.

oooooOOOOOOO!!!

...

 

(Just to be clear, I do not believe the things I just wrote. I was just contemplating whether or not one has to be stupid to believe there's a connection between covid-19 and radio waves. I found out it's rather hard to make that theory believable, but if someone spent more time creating arguments than I just did, they might sound a lot more credible, even to not-stupid people.)

[Fuzzbucket]

1 minute ago, Confused Cat said:

§😈

Welllll, @olympe, have you actually seen a coronavirus? And even if it exists, do you know that's what causes the symptoms?

All you know is there is suddenly a new illness, and all the governments (not trustworthy!) and mainstream media (insert a certain bad word here) say it's caused by a virus, but... is that the truth?

oOOoooOOooooo.... (spooky noises, X-Files music)

We know some sorts of waves can affect tangible objects. Microwaves can melt cheese, so maybe... radio waves can affect the human body?

oooooOOOOOOOO! (dramatic music, slowly getting louder)

What if they reprogram our cells so they start spontaneously producing viruses? Computer programs can be transmitted through radio waves, and... biological viruses work just like computer viruses.

oooooOOOOOOO!!!

...

 

(Just to be clear, I do not believe the things I just wrote. I was just contemplating whether or not one has to be stupid to believe there's a connection between covid-19 and radio waves. I found out it's rather hard to make that theory believable, but if someone spent more time creating arguments than I just did, they might sound a lot more credible, even to not-stupid people.)

 

You've got it. Fear rarely makes sense (why am I terrified of daddy longlegses ? I do KNOW they are harmless; I even actually do know that. I even understand it. But....)

 

Quote

oooooOOOOOOO!!!