Jump to content

Free To Fly


FA@AC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bottom line is that one should ALWAYS question accepted wisdom. I'm encouraging others to simply use your wits; look at the stars and ask "why?".

I don't think any of the collective "us" have much of a clue as to any of the biologic rationale behind our existence.

I was surprised and a little disappointed with FA@AC's response ( though not with the approval of admirers). I wasn't directing my remark at Covid per se but rather at the conceit of humanity. I wouldn't be alive today without the benefit of medical science but that doesn't ( and shouldn't) prevent me for at least questioning the assumptions we make about the importance of our existence.

I don't swear to the numbers but I believe something like 1200 dolphin were killed near the Faro Islands as a means of population control. Really?

And you can't conceive of an alien over-seer deciding that humans are too numerous?

Closing....reference was made to 3rd world issues. The animal kingdom.....hell....all living species produce offspring based upon a probability of infant mortality. That is evolutionary; not the implementation of a social program.

Various countries in this vast world of ours have birth rates more than triple ours with the evolutionary expectation that a significant percentage of those newborns will not survive until maturity. As caring societies intervene to enhance survivability, more suffer the agony of hunger and disease resulting from over-population.

Do I have a suggested solution? Of course not.....but don't be fearful of at least thinking about the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

I was surprised and a little disappointed with FA@AC's response ( though not with the approval of admirers). I wasn't directing my remark at Covid per se but rather at the conceit of humanity. I wouldn't be alive today without the benefit of medical science but that doesn't ( and shouldn't) prevent me for at least questioning the assumptions we make about the importance of our existence.

My question as to what your point was was a genuine one.  I didn't intend offence with it, I just didn't get where you were going with your thoughts.  I now understand better.

I haven't ever considered disease prevention or medical science to have anything to do with conceit on the part of humanity.  If we can prevent illness, why wouldn't we?  If we can cure it, why wouldn't we?  Nobody seriously advocates doing away with health care services.  Nobody except Maxime Bernier or the few quacks who came up with the Great Barrington Declaration (or for that matter the Free to Fly organization) would advocate allowing the virus to rip through society unchecked killing millions--both with Covid itself and with other medical conditions that wouldn't be treatable due to hospitals busting at the seams.  Even Jason Kenny and his Dr Hinshaw seem to have woken up to the reality that measures to contain the pandemic need to continue.

In first world countries Covid is avoidable with precautions that most of us in can easily take.  Severe Covid is nearly always preventable with vaccines that are now readily available.  Those are good things in my view, not problems.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, boestar said:

 

We cannot, as a species, evolve and grow when the herd is slowly dragging us all down.

 

It is herd mentality that drags us down.  

One only has to look to the provinces who have done the worse through the pandemic, and it's mainly because of their duly elected leadership.

https://www.680news.com/2021/09/15/ford-government-spending-fao/

The Financial Accountability Office (FAO) released its latest report on Wednesday, revealing the Ford government spent $2.6 billion less than planned in the fiscal first quarter (April 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021).

The independent report says, “In the health sector, the province did not spend any of the $2.7 billion COVID-19 Response transfer payment.”

First announced on March 25, 2021, the Government of Canada is providing $4 billion through a one-time top-up to the Canada Health Transfer to help address the pressures that COVID-19 has put on the health care systems.

The FAO detailed that the province spent $36.9 billion in the first quarter, which was $2.6 billion (6.6 per cent) less than planned. Most sectors spent less, led by “other programs” ($1.0 billion or 16.6 per cent under the plan), health ($1.0 billion or 5.4 per cent under the plan) and children’s and social services ($0.5 billion or 11.6 per cent under the plan).

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/live-at-6-p-m-kenney-and-officials-to-give-alberta-covid-19-update

The comments come despite Kenney’s government making decisions this summer to leave the pandemic behind itself by treating it as endemic and attempting to live with the virus. The province first removed almost all public health measures July 1 — a move chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw acknowledged this week led to the fourth wave — and then planned to remove all virus containment measures in August before walking back that plan.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, conehead said:

no.  Survival of the fittest.

In the natural order the weak and old naturally die off.  Humans are the only species that artificailly prolongs life "unnaturally"  This leads to the overall weakness of the species.  It also make us vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, deicer said:

It is herd mentality that drags us down. 

I respectfully disagree.  A strong herd is healthy and thrives.  When the weak and sick are allowed to remain part of the heard, it is slowly decayed until overcome and eventually wiped out.

The sick, spread disease to the rest of the herd and when left unchecked will kill the majority of it.  The weak and sick are breeding grounds for disease and again left unchecked those diseases will mutate and become more virulent.

It is not the Herd Mentality that brings us down, it is not learning from nature that brings us down.   We may be one of the most advanced species on the planet but we are not the dominant one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rose by any other name? 

News today is twofold...1) natural immunity is 10 times more resistant to Covid than the vaccines according to a recent analysis but I've probably screwed that up ....

2) a booster shot basically restores the waning immunity from the vaccine BUTin combination with those two shots is significantly more effective than only two shots....as per Israel.

AC...I drafted an absolutely brilliant commentary about the social benefits (and the costs)derived from the extremes of applied medical science. I mentioned the $250,000 cost of a drug that extends the lifespan of a terminally ill patient by three months. I added a bit about the proven propagation of hereditary ( genetic) weaknesses and the fear that recessive traits are becoming dominant BUT....it was all inadvertently deleted.

Could I trouble you to simply believe me?

By the way....re commentary above....I was not offended in the least. I cherish the exchange of honestly held opinion. As has been said...I learn very little from debates with those who echo my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

AC...I drafted an absolutely brilliant commentary about the social benefits (and the costs)derived from the extremes of applied medical science. I mentioned the $250,000 cost of a drug that extends the lifespan of a terminally ill patient by three months. I added a bit about the proven propagation of hereditary ( genetic) weaknesses and the fear that recessive traits are becoming dominant BUT....it was all inadvertently deleted.

Could I trouble you to simply believe me?

Yes of course I believe you!  I was tempted to get into all of that myself.  I decided not to because I wouldn't have known what I was talking about, although I think I get the gist of it,

I do get your larger argument, or at least I think I do and I find it reasonable.  But to bring it back to Covid-19, prevention (even with low vaccination rates) is cheap, or at least a lot less expensive than letting the virus run rampant as Premiers Kenny and Moe have finally discovered.  Vaccination is inexpensive, too, even though the organization that is the subject of this thread would likely argue that it causes us to become magnetic, or that we're secretly being implanted with microchips during the process, or.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FA@AC said:

even though the organization that is the subject of this thread would likely argue that it causes us to become magnetic, or that we're secretly being implanted with microchips during the process, or.........

Please don't do that.  Don't try to discredit someone or some group by falsely attributing claims to them.  Their platform is posted on the site - argue the facts, if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

Please don't do that.  Don't try to discredit someone or some group by falsely attributing claims to them.  Their platform is posted on the site - argue the facts, if you wish.

I see that they're hawking ribbons now.  I wonder how sales are going.

I hadn't noticed until I read your post that the site has changed a bit.  It now contains a link to a site which proclaims "IT IS NOW WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE AT RISK OF SERIOUS DISEASE FROM COVID-19 ARE THE ELDERLY, THOSE WITH MAJOR ILLNESSES, AND THOSE LIVING IN SHARED LIVING FACILITIES LIKE LONG TERM CARE CENTRES (LTCS)."

The site suggests that readers should contact Derek Sloan, the former Conservative MP who accused Dr Theresa Tam of working for China and who opposed public health measures to control the pandemic.  

There's also a video link to a lawyer who talks at length about how forced vaccination violates our rights.  What he has to say might be relevant if anyone in Canada was being forced to undergo vaccination, but nobody is.

The linked document is:

https://64499a81-d991-4e8d-a576-ea3dd3827ffa.filesusr.com/ugd/16b6b8_1a3b42ba484b463094ad624f9bc85a8f.pdf

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

I see that they're hawking ribbons now.  I wonder how sales are going.

I hadn't noticed until I read your post that the site has changed a bit.  It now contains a link to a site which proclaims "IT IS NOW WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE AT RISK OF SERIOUS DISEASE FROM COVID-19 ARE THE ELDERLY, THOSE WITH MAJOR ILLNESSES, AND THOSE LIVING IN SHARED LIVING FACILITIES LIKE LONG TERM CARE CENTRES (LTCS)."

The site suggests that readers should contact Derek Sloan, the former Conservative MP who accused Dr Theresa Tam of working for China and who opposed public health measures to control the pandemic.  

There's also a video link to a lawyer who talks at length about how forced vaccination violates our rights.  What he has to say might be relevant if anyone in Canada was being forced to undergo vaccination, but nobody is.

The linked document is:

https://64499a81-d991-4e8d-a576-ea3dd3827ffa.filesusr.com/ugd/16b6b8_1a3b42ba484b463094ad624f9bc85a8f.pdf

.....and nothing about microchips or becoming magnetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FA@AC said:

 "IT IS NOW WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE AT RISK OF SERIOUS DISEASE FROM COVID-19 ARE THE ELDERLY, THOSE WITH MAJOR ILLNESSES, AND THOSE LIVING IN SHARED LIVING FACILITIES LIKE LONG TERM CARE CENTRES (LTCS)."

Not aimed at you FA@AC, but whoever put that clause on the F2F website.

I wonder how the parents of children who have died or are in ICU would feel reading that.

IMO It's a disgrace. 

Vs

Edited by Vsplat
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

 

I wonder how the parents of children who have died or are in ICU would feel reading that.

 

How many children have died from Covid?  I have no idea but you seem to think it's a large number.  I don't have the time to do the research but would be curious to know how Covid deaths stack up against the traditional causes of motor vehicle accidents, drowning, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Seeker said:

How many children have died from Covid?  I have no idea but you seem to think it's a large number.  I don't have the time to do the research but would be curious to know how Covid deaths stack up against the traditional causes of motor vehicle accidents, drowning, etc.

How many do you need to see?  I have no idea where you are going with this.

Vs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

How many do you need to see?  I have no idea where you are going with this.

Vs

Well, I don't know.  Every death is a tragedy to the family and loved ones of those involved - doesn't matter if it's a child or a great-grandparent.

The F2F group is saying that Covid is mostly about older, co-morbid people.  You 're saying, "what about the children?".  I'm just asking about the relative impact of Covid on children.  Your post seems to imply that you feel there is an adverse or inordinate effect on children.  I'm just asking if you have done any research to back this up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Seeker said:

Your post seems to imply that you feel there is an adverse or inordinate effect on children.  I'm just asking if you have done any research to back this up?

Haven't you reversed this a bit?  The only place I see any claim about scale is in the Free to Fly quote.  I asked how parents of affected children would feel reading that, quite frankly, reference free statement.  'Well established' - but not backed up with anything.

The discussion about how many children originated with you.  I find the need to quantify childrens' death for the sake of argument macabre.

How about simply asking where F2F gets the support for their material?

Vs

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

While lovers of liberty in all lands have urged the necessity of freedom of speech, none put the case more pointedly than Voltaire when he said: “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.”

While Voltaire didn't actually speak or write those words, they enunciate what is generally accepted as "Voltarian principle".

It is suggested that Covid's worst impact has been rendered upon certain groups excluding children. That resulted in criticism not of the statement itself but in its insensitivity to those who may indeed have lost a child.

The innocent  die of all causes every day and each death is mourned. Witness the 7 children killed in Afghanistan by the US as a result of the " mistaken" interpretation of drone-sourced intelligence.

Indeed that is tragic but it will not and should not constrain the discussion generally of collateral deaths resulting from military action.

I presume all appreciate that current news reports of crisis levels of daily infections and over-whelmed hospitals echos the same reports published in the Spring months of 2020 and yet the total of persons infected and persons vaccinated should by now have resulted in diminishing numbers regardless of variant; fewer people vulnerable...fewer people infected.

I went to a local hospital today and spoke to administration. I was told that the increasing backlog in operations is in large part due to the "bed reserve" Ontario requires be maintained to handle Covid cases. The actual number of Covid cases in a particular regional area served by a local hospital are irrelevant. WHAT??

The result is that there is an increasing backlog of medically necessary procedures; peope will die because beds are sitting empty awaiting Covid patients who may never arrive.

These are issues that must be discussed but what we see on the nightly news is sensational videos of stressed medical personnel and makeshift care tents. And a blanket thrown over the comments of those who dare to question accepted wisdom.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, UpperDeck said:

According to the WSJ...

In Children, Risk of Covid-19 Death or Serious Illness Remains Extremely Low, New Studies Find

The findings come from some of the most comprehensive research on the risks of the coronavirus for those 18 years and younger

I'm unable to find that article.  Perhaps this one might be of relevance:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

But again, I don't know how much death and suffering is required to meet the unspecified threshold of validity.

Vs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Children, Risk of Covid-19 Death or Serious Illness Remains Extremely Low, New Studies Find

The findings come from some of the most comprehensive research on the risks of the coronavirus for those 18 years and younger

Thu Jul 8, 2021 - The Wall Street Journal
By Denise Roland

Children are at extremely slim risk of dying from Covid-19, according to some of the most comprehensive studies to date, which indicate the threat might be even lower than previously thought.

Some 99.995% of the 469,982 children in England who were infected during the year examined by researchers survived, one study found.

In fact, there were fewer deaths among children due to the virus than initially suspected. Among the 61 child deaths linked to a positive Covid-19 test in England, 25 were actually caused by the illness, the study found.

The three studies, by researchers in the U.K. reviewing its national health system’s medical records or pulling together data from other countries, were published on preprint servers Thursday. The studies haven’t yet been reviewed by independent experts and are preliminary.

The studies provide some of the most detailed analysis yet of severe illness and death from Covid-19 in children, a closely watched subject as schools prepare for a new academic year and parents weigh whether to have their children vaccinated if shots are cleared for younger ages. One of the studies focused only on deaths, while the other two examined the risks of severe illness and death.

Researchers previously had found the risk of severe illness and death from Covid-19 among children under 18 years was relatively low. The new studies confirm the findings, adding to the weight of evidence as policy makers and school officials make decisions about mask-wearing and physical distancing.

“Having a larger and larger database…adds a lot to our ability to make important decisions,” said Dr. Rick Malley, an infectious-diseases specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, who wasn’t involved in the studies. The study examining the risk of death is “certainly one of the largest studies I’ve seen,” he said.

Some vaccines are in late-stage testing in younger children, while in use in adolescents 12 years and older.

One thorny area for policy makers is whether to recommend the shots if health agencies authorize the vaccines for children of younger ages. The decision would involve balancing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the low risk of serious illness and death from Covid-19.

Some parents have been concerned about giving messenger RNA vaccines from Pfizer Inc. or Moderna Inc. to adolescents because of the risk of a rare inflammatory heart condition. Advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have urged vaccination, saying the benefits outweigh the risks.

Several countries, including the U.S., are offering the Pfizer shot to children 12 years and older. The U.K. has held back from offering vaccines to older children under 18, unless they have certain serious illnesses.

For the three new studies, researchers looked at various medical and study data for children of different ages for periods since the coronavirus pandemic started.

Researchers conducting the death study analyzed several national databases to identify children under 18 across England who had died from Covid-19 in the first year of the pandemic, from March 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021.

“England is a large enough country and it’s had enough Covid, sadly, that we have better data than almost anywhere else in the world on the risks,” said Russell Viner, a professor of adolescent health at the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and senior author on the death study as well as another looking at English hospital and intensive-care admissions.

Researchers from the University of Bristol, University of York and University of Liverpool were also key contributors to the three papers. Two of the studies were published on the medRxiv preprint server and one on the Research Square preprint server.

Underlying health conditions, especially serious brain or nerve-related disabilities, increased the risk of dying of Covid-19, according to the study looking at child deaths.

Fifteen of the 25 children in England who died because of Covid-19 during the period examined had underlying serious illnesses, the researchers said, while four had chronic underlying conditions. The researchers didn’t specify the serious illnesses or chronic conditions, but said that children with a combination of neurological and respiratory-linked conditions were at the greatest risk of death.

Three of the deaths were due to multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a serious complication of infection where different body parts can become inflamed. Six of the children who died due to Covid-19 didn’t appear to have an underlying health condition, researchers said.

No child with a stand-alone diagnosis of asthma, diabetes, epilepsy or Down syndrome died from Covid-19, the researchers said.

The risk of death was higher among children from Black and Asian backgrounds and in children above 10 years, the researchers said. Even among these higher-risk groups, however, children’s absolute risk of dying from Covid-19 is very small.

“Twice a tiny risk is still a very, very tiny risk,” said Professor Viner. “Even 10 times a very, very tiny risk is still a very, very tiny risk.”

Underlying health conditions also raised the risk of severe illness, the two other papers said.

“Factors linked to a higher risk of severe Covid-19 appear to be broadly consistent for both children and adults,” said Joseph Ward, of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, who led one of the studies.

That study found a higher risk of admission to intensive care among children with health conditions such as diabetes, asthma and cardiovascular disease. Those with multiple conditions had the highest risk. Even so, the absolute risk was very small, the researchers said.

The studies all related to time periods that predated the emergence of the Delta variant that is now dominant in both the U.K. and the U.S., but the authors said there was as yet no evidence that the variant causes more severe illness or death among children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Haven't you reversed this a bit?  The only place I see any claim about scale is in the Free to Fly quote.  I asked how parents of affected children would feel reading that, quite frankly, reference free statement.  'Well established' - but not backed up with anything.

The discussion about how many children originated with you.  I find the need to quantify childrens' death for the sake of argument macabre.

How about simply asking where F2F gets the support for their material?

Vs

The material to support the "well established" claim is hot-linked in the document.  Here it is for you, straight from the government website.  That's acceptable to you?  Data from a government website?  Sorry, I don't have any CNN links to provide.

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

I asked you about the number of children in the hopes you would go find out on your own what I already know - the number of children that die from Covid is extremely low.  Yes, every one is a tragedy, just as every grandparent who dies is a tragedy.

It's not macabre to count the number of children affected any more than it is macabre to count the number of people over 80 who die.  Or the number of women.  If you don't count and classify according to demographics how can you understand what's going on?

I don't know why you and FA@AC are so worked up about the "well established" statement?  Isn't it well established?  Here is a graph straight from the Government Canada. Please tell me how your interpretation would differ?

1979495402_ScreenShot2021-09-18at07_15_05.thumb.png.279aa771396329161883e99ff4a18019.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...