Don't Give Me Anymore: Covid's Long Shadow

[nicky wire's legs]

I would get some vaccines, like the shingles one or if polio were still a threat, the polio one. Why would I get a vaccine for the f***ing flu? That's what's weird. Not being vaccine-happy doesn't make one an antivaxxer you dimwitted simpleton

 

[Vesper Nocturne]

Weird that my response to audrey isn’t even here anymore, or anywhere

 

[Roman Holiday]

Weird that my response to audrey isn’t even here anymore, or anywhere

Oh. That is weird. In fact, the last alert I got for anything in this thread was for post no. 88. Nothing else afterwards came up in my alerts until post no. 101 just a few minutes ago.

 

[goinghome]

What good would it do them to be working with a virus of "supernatural intensity" and yet have the same level of transmission safeguards as an open-air wet market?

The reason lab personnel take extra precautions, wear ppe etc is because of vastly increased mostly invisible risks. My argument is: why take those risks? They're too high. Safety cannot be assured.

I think there are two separate arguments here. I don't expect RFK Jr. to be sinless. I do, however, since he claims to care about the environment, expect him to know that the animal agriculture industry is a leading cause of CO2 emissions, pollution, and water waste. Unapologetically eating meat, he's just like the John Kerrys flying in to climate change conferences on their private jets. These people lose all credibility when they can't even do the basic math.

Okay. Fair enough. Because he has been a very prominent environmental campaigner, and for basic ethical reasons, it would have been better if he didn't eat meat. But in his defense, the grotesque stories of the bear and goat meat dug up about him recently referred to events in the past, and were obviously calculated efforts to smear him politically.

Humans are indeed omnivores. For most of our history we were hunter-gatherers. If someone wants to hunt and forage for their food, there is no ethical problem there, because the animal suffering they cause ≤ the animal suffering caused by a vegan who consumes plants grown in fields where many critters were killed in the plowing.

Unfortunately, most of the 8 billion people on this planet cannot be self-sufficient as hunter-gatherers. The amount of meat and dairy that people would have to be satisfied with if you wanted to raise animals w/out cruelty, land degradation or pollution would be so little that there would be rioting in the streets if you tried to ration it. Here's something I'll put odds on that I'm way more confident of than the wet market theory of COVID-19. I predict that humans will not reduce their meat and dairy intake to a sufficient level for eliminating factory farms.

At the moment, granted, optimism does not abound.

Here's a bit more on mpox, in the wider context of public health (aka 'the Pandemic Industrial Complex') and economic developments, as explained by someone who worked for the WHO - https://brownstone.org/articles/whats-really-happening-with-mpox/-

 

[Roman Holiday]

The reason lab personnel take extra precautions, wear ppe etc is because of vastly increased mostly invisible risks. My argument is: why take those risks? They're too high. Safety cannot be assured.

Safety wasn't assured when the Manhattan Project first tested the nuclear bomb, either, but that was done. A benevolent virology lab will study viruses in order to develop vaccines; a malevolent one will try to create a bioweapon. They'd both be worth the risk: one for humanity and profit, and the other for country and battlefield (or, if you want to surmise a conspiracy among élites: the ability to scorch the deplorables and vaccinate themselves and the elect). High risk, high reward.

Okay. Fair enough. Because he has been a very prominent environmental campaigner, and for basic ethical reasons, it would have been better if he didn't eat meat. But in his defense, the grotesque stories of the bear and goat meat dug up about him recently referred to events in the past, and were obviously calculated efforts to smear him politically.

Yes, but he's a big meat eater even without those two scandals. In the recent video where he's recounting the bear cub story for Roseanne Barr, the table he's sitting at is full of meat platters. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, is a fanatic for raw milk.

 

[goinghome]

Safety wasn't assured when the Manhattan Project first tested the nuclear bomb, either, but that was done. A benevolent virology lab will study viruses in order to develop vaccines; a malevolent one will try to create a bioweapon. They'd both be worth the risk: one for humanity and profit, and the other for country and battlefield (or, if you want to surmise a conspiracy among élites: the ability to scorch the deplorables and vaccinate themselves and the elect). High risk, high reward.

Do Americans learn in school to venerate the Manhattan Project? Scientists behind the Doomsday Clock aren't as favorably disposed - https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

But citing nuclear emissions in the context of viral infections is to me a perfect segue, because of similar diffuse, obtuse, and speed+and+scale impacts.

Yes, but he's a big meat eater even without those two scandals. In the recent video where he's recounting the bear cub story for Roseanne Barr, the table he's sitting at is full of meat platters. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, is a fanatic for raw milk.

It's easy to home in on people's faults, even for those raising heads above parapets for the rest of us. Who is perfect?

I like this discussion about how technological fixes can get in the way of life and less ruinous fixes - https://www.planetcritical.com/p/low-tech-life-kris-de-decker

And the week starting 21st September offers an opportunity to all to do something to advance kinder ways, being named Global Week of Action for Peace and Climate Justice - https://climatemilitarism.org/weekofaction/

 

[Roman Holiday]

Do Americans learn in school to venerate the Manhattan Project?

I guess it depends on the local curriculum. My own schooling is forty years out of date, but we were taught that the dropping of the bomb was a difficult decision made to save the lives of American soldiers since the Japanese were an imperial death cult who wouldn't surrender. It went without saying that this was done at the expense of the lives of thousands of Japanese civilians; the student was left to draw his or her own conclusions. Many American parents believe in American exceptionalism, so a lot depends on the kid's environment and influences. Our Catholic priest was a "no nukes" liberal so I received both sides.

My point wasn't to pass judgement on the atomic bomb, though. I was just responding to your question, "why take high risks when safety is not assured?" It's because the high risk is considered worth it. Preventative measures are taken precisely because of the increased danger. You cannot have a virology lab with a greater risk of transmission than a live-slaughter wet market. That would defeat the purpose of having it, because its goal is either the prevention of viruses or the development of a bioweapon to be used on enemies. In neither case do you want to be lax, since your own population is at the greatest risk.

It's easy to home in on people's faults, even for those raising heads above parapets for the rest of us. Who is perfect?

No one is perfect except for the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. But I'm not demanding perfection from RFK Jr. I'm just asking for basic consistency. Anyway, the omens suggest he is going to drop out of the race and give his endorsement to Trump. The self-styled environmentalist and vaccine skeptic is going with the candidate of "drill baby drill" and Operation Warp Speed. It does make some sense, though. They're both big Zionists.

And the week starting 21st September offers an opportunity to all to do something to advance kinder ways, being named Global Week of Action for Peace and Climate Justice

An honorable goal, but completely pie-in-the-sky. Abby Martin has an unreleased documentary examining the environmental footprint of the US military-industrial complex. The results of her research are staggering but not surprising—and let's face it, there aren't enough "global weeks of action for peace and climate justice" in the world to make the US military-industrial complex do anything it doesn't want to (see also: Israel/Gaza). Discussed at length in this podcast.