the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

main sentence - I don`t know
What I know - response of our body may be different for the same treat.
So
treating everybody the same way is from the starting point not quite right.
In general - it can be beneficial for flock, but deadly wrong for some part.
Now,
are you a flock?

I know my body and progressing accordingly,
`cause RSF is part of similarly thinkin` flock (in terms of diggin` into our body function) I feel free to post such info.

What about elderly already dyin` after vaccine? (in Poland one, so far) .
I know, they are old and sick already, - Why vaccinate them anyway?.

In Poland whole house for elderly was close with the staff due to covd infection.
and guess what - any of them died, they took care for themselves and all still live , regardless of this deadly virus in their system.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6225847837001#sp=show-clips

Fauci's research may have led us may have led us to where we are now.

Well, I thought it came from China. Anyway, if Fauci's research led to Covid, seems like he'd have the expertise to understand how to fight it.

expert's name sounds almost as faux

Bill wrote:https://video.foxnews.com/v/6225847837001#sp=show-clips

Fauci's research may have led us may have led us to where we are now.

I can't really agree with some of the conclusions, especially towards the end. There are several international universities collaborating with The Wuhan institute (It's a University labb/building, not a military site), mostly the research here has been in collaboration especially with US, Canada and France. So the funding of different research is mostly between these three and China. So it's not Fauci who has personally funded the Wuhan institute or the USA. It's an international collaboration.

Also, the person involved here and seen as a name on many research papers, Shi Zheng-Li has her name on many international papers, including research made in collaborating labs in the US. She has also reported that she has brought samples from China and Wuhan to the US labs. In those research papers for the research in the US, her name is amongst the last names which means that she has no big part of the research done there. Maybe she just brought samples or assisted.

So really, if it was hand-made, any of these international labs in the US, Canada or France, could be responsible. There's a problem with Steve's remark: "Well, I thought it came from China." And this is that there are good proofs that the virus was found in Europe almost one year before it struck hard in Wuhan. Regardless if the virus was natural or made, this should lead people to question that it must have been from China. Apparently people still believe so. Personally I am not sure about it.

If it had been in Wuhan already in the early 2019, it would have been all over China and we would have known about it. Wuhan is a city with a population of 11 million, it's densely populated and an important connection point to many other cities. In the days, one high speed train depart from Wuhan every single minute. It would be impossible to not spread fast and also to other cities. So I really, really doubt that it came from Wuhan. Merely the evidence of findings in Italy, Spain in early 2019 and proposals even of being found in the GB in the middle of the same year suggests that it could not have been spread from Wuhan. I see no logic to the old assumptions.

Bao. I was being sarcastic. Neither China nor Fauci are why we are in this situation. However, distrust of experts is. Not because they're always right, but because of the number of people who are determined to say they're wrong because they heard it on the internet. There's Fauci and then there's FOX News or Alex Jones.

Bao wrote:. Merely the evidence of findings in Italy, Spain in early 2019 and proposals even of being found in the GB in the middle of the same year suggests that it could not have been spread from Wuhan. I see no logic to the old assumptions.

if its a leak from a lab it could have been at any such biosafety 4 facilities around the world, the big bulk of such labs are to be found in the US and UK, the one in lombardy seem suspicious too.......As an conspiracy theory liker i play with the thought that it might have been an coordinated virus release by experts at a couple of these around the world labs..
https://www.liquisearch.com/biosafety_l ... facilities

I understood that there was some sarcasm in it. But still, it's good to discuss.

"Neither China nor Fauci are why we are in this situation. However, distrust of experts is. Not because they're always right, but because of the number of people who are determined to say they're wrong because they heard it on the internet."

This might be one reason. However, governments have their own propaganda and their own agendas. Misinformation and disinformation are spread from all directions. When people see that governments and authorities are not honest and do everything to keep away things that go against a political agenda or things that criticise it, people will wonder about the sincerity and intent behind the action and react.

Hopefully the new administration in the US can calm things down over there. Openness might help things to get better. Here in Europe though, we are stuck with what we already have.

However, governments have their own propaganda and their own agendas. Misinformation and disinformation are spread from all directions.

Those are separate issues. China had every reason to want to underplay the seriousness of the virus. However, Xi alerted Trump in January, after Xi had to acknowledge the number of hospitals being built and the regional lockdowns. Instead of preparing for the problem, Trump called the virus a (Democratic) hoax. Xi held back information, and some say that he still is. Trump provided misinformation. That wouldn't have changed no matter where the virus originated.

However, for the last twelve months, either someone believed what Trump said or they believed Fauci. That conflict is a less noticeable in China. The government there controls the scientists. Here, though, we saw a conflict every day between someone who'd spent 60 years working on infectious diseases and someone who didn't know wtf he was talking about [though he claimed that experts were surprised at how smart he was about that stuff].

It's easy to Google stories of covid19 victims on their death beds saying they wish they hadn't listened to Trump. Nope, he did not make them do anything; but, if he hadn't said anything, I'd bet money that they would have listened to Fauci.

All anyone in the general US public "knew" anything about ebola except through "experts" like Fauci. Imagine if politicians had said, "don't worry, ebola is like AIDS, you have to be gay, a druggie, or from a 3rd world country to catch it? (Oops, poor example. We know better now, but I remember when that's just what they said, and why politicians didn't care about putting people in cages).

China had every reason to want to underplay the seriousness of the virus.

I can't see that they did. How and when? I don't think you can give a good answer. It was the WHO who underplayed it. Countries in the West don't want to listen to China or take information directly from them. They listen to the WHO, not on China. It wouldn't have mattered if China toned it down or tried to attack or warn countries harder.

But they actually did attack countries for not taking it seriously. They wanted the EU and WHO to condemn Sweden for not wanting to stop it and instead letting it run free in the country. The person in charge for handling the outbreak in China said that you can't gamble with people's like this, and that the virus is much to unpredictable to handle this way. Did Sweden listen? No, here they just laughed. And who was right??? China of course. And then everyone blame China. Ridiculous.

My point is that it's a blame game that is irrelevant. You can blame the WHO experts. Same-o.

The blame game is important if we say it's not about blaming only one party but:
1. all of those parties didn't do the best thing - try to understand all the faults and issues.
2. therefore, how to make sure all/most parties are far more prepared to act quickly/intelligently next time.

However, for the last twelve months, either someone believed what Trump said or they believed Fauci. That conflict is a less noticeable in China. The government there controls the scientists. Here, though, we saw a conflict every day between someone who'd spent 60 years working on infectious diseases and someone who didn't know wtf he was talking about [though he claimed that experts were surprised at how smart he was about that stuff].

Trump reminded me of the Holiday Inn Express commercials:

2. therefore, how to make sure all/most parties are far more prepared to act quickly/intelligently next time.

The way is to make sure all/most parties don't make the same mistakes. The first is the need to work together. Sure, blame the WHO; so, next time, don't trust it. Blame China; don't believe what they say. Blame Trump? Why? If there's a new virus, how will that help? And, most importantly, afa the op, who will most people believe in terms of how "we" and the world will deal with a disease pandemic?

It's the same with the climate issue. How do we deal with fires? Listen to foresters or a tweeter suggesting that leaves need to be raked more regularly? Is it safe to look at an eclipse? How do we know? Who ya gonna listen to? That was Arnold's point.

Fwiw, here's what Fauci said went wrong.

1. Dr. Fauci Said Mixed Messaging Was to Blame
When asked about what went wrong with the United States approach to the pandemic, Fauci didn't hold back. The first issue is that "we had a situation where instead of concentrating from the top on the science and realizing that we must make decisions based on data and based on evidence, there was a considerable amount of mixed messaging about what needed to be done from the top down. And that really cost us dearly," he said.

2. Political Divisiveness Was “Destructive,” Fauci Said
The second complication, according to Dr. Fauci, was the political divisiveness that dominated last year. "It makes it extremely problematic to adequately address a public health crisis when you're in the middle of a profound degree of divisiveness in the country," he explained. "When public health issues become politically charged—like wearing a mask or not becomes a political statement—you cannot imagine how destructive that is to any unified public health message."

3. We Needed More “Cooperation” Between States, Says Fauci
Lastly, the United States weren't quite so united when it came to their pandemic approach. "The other thing that we learned is that some of the things about the United States specifically that under different circumstances work well, namely the Federalist approach, where you have 50 States and territories, each of which are given a degree of flexibility of doing things their own way," he said. "The federal government doesn't want to tell the States what to do. So we had a situation where the States were sort of left on their own. So we had a disparate, inconsistent response from one state to the other, which is antithetical. So the fact that the virus is the same, it doesn't know the difference between New York and Pennsylvania, between Louisiana and Mississippi, it's all the same, yet there was such a very, very strong differences, the way different States handle it. So the lesson there was, we needed to have a good cooperation between the federal government and the individual locals, which we did not have."