oops

You are so focused on death, one wonders if you hate life. The world is under attack from a virus, so the response is to shut down the economy, and limit personal freedoms. Isn't one blow enough for you? If you had a rodent problem in your house, you could burn down the house, and probably solve the problem. Others however might hire an exterminator who would find out where the mice are getting in, seal the holes, and then devise a plan to get rid of the mice without doing damage to the house. It is your choice of course, but the fire department might have some hard questions when they arrive.

There actually has been a very low death rate among people who have been tested for covid19. The idea with treating cancerous tumors with scalding hot water is to use only a little. It doesn't take a lot, because the burn spreads. Have faith in our doctors, they are less reckless than you might believe.

If we could test everyone, and isolate everyone necessary, we could end this crisis in 14 days.

Nice to know that someone wants to be more informed on the subject. It is unfortunate that our elected leaders, top doctors and news media don't share that desire.

Of course the new strain has changed the picture significantly. Part of Britain's problem is a decline in the health care system. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/nhs-hospital-bed-numbers The total number of NHS hospital beds in England, including general and acute, mental illness, learning disability, maternity and day-only beds, has more than halved over the past 30 years, from around 299,000 in 1987/88 to 141,000 in 2018/9, while the number of patients treated has increased significantly. Most other advanced health care systems have also reduced bed numbers in recent years. However, the UK has fewer acute beds relative to its population than many comparable health systems. Of course the big picture is that lockdowns makes this situation worse. Underfunding of the healthcare system has reduced it's capacity to respond appropriately to this crisis. The big picture solution is to promote a healthy economy that can support an effective healthcare system. It is good to see that Britain is using field hospitals to address the shortage of hospital beds. Of course preventing fires is better than putting them out. A better solution is to do more testing, so they know who to isolate. Why they keep chasing this thing instead of trying to get ahead of it is kind of puzzling. There are currently 23,823 current hospitalizations and 141,000 remaining hospital bed in the UK that is one in six, not two thirds. It is not wise to do long term damage to solve a short term problem. It is a virus, and people will get sick, and people will die, but it is not the last virus we will see. Better to support a healthy economy and be ready for the next one. Increased testing is needed, why wander around in the dark, when it is better to turn on a light and stop bumping into things. There are 2,599,000 infections in the UK out of 66,650,000 population, that is 4% of the population, why not test their contacts, and their contacts to find out who is likely to transmit the virus. Better still there are rapid at home tests, why not provide them to as many people as possible, If we could test everyone we could use an informed response instead of attacking it blindly. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51768274

Of course you would not post this if you didn't have a source. Please let us in on your source.

Here is what Dr. David Nabarro said on October 9

I find it hard to call it a hoax also, I never have and never will. I also find it hard to call it a conspiracy , because I think our leaders are too inept to pull one off. My issue is that we are are letting our fear of death make us forget our love of life. What would happen if hadn't locked down? We would have continued to educate our children to the best of our ability and given them hope for the future instead of locking them out of their schools and telling them they might die. We would have kept visiting our seniors, and not closed the places where they meet with others. then we wouldn't be seeing them isolated, lonely and increasingly sedentary, leading to increased deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer's and other forms of deteriorative decline. We wouldn't be running a $381 billion dollar deficit, that will burden our children for decades to come. Justin of course would run a deficit as always, but $381 billion is large even by his standards. We wouldn't have driven so many of our businesses into bankruptcy resulting in a 38% drop in gdp, lessening our ability to repay our mounting debt. We would have kept our hospitals open, instead of closing them, and then watching as people on waiting lists who were scheduled for cancer and heart procedures died without treatment. We would have come together with our family and friends to celebrate weddings and birthdays, and mourn our dead. We would have gone to sporting events, live music concerts, lived life, and made memories. As for the long term care homes, we have truly not done well there. Of course the lock downs didn't do much to prevent the residents from attending school, riding public transit or attending all night long wild parties. One possible solution might be to provide enough funding to make the needed changes to make them as safe as possible. It would be wise to appoint someone who could audit these facilities as he sees necessary, and who could coordinate any libel actions that arise from misuse of these funds.

Why do some care so much about death, and so little about life?

Free enterprise is a market system. Capital is what takes us beyond the barter system. Capitalism just means that is based on a monetary system, which is the capital. Self interested traders looking out for their own needs, does not provide for police roads and hospitals though. This necessitates to be a group of people who will provide these shared (or public) needs, and managers to organize these people. They also need the ability to raise the necessary funds to accomplish all of this. This is of course government, and taxation. Under capitalism government and markets are separate, but mutually beneficial. Under socialism the government also provides medical care, pensions for the elderly, assistance for the unemployed and disadvantaged, and other social needs. Taxes are based on ones ability to pay, Under socialism government does more, and the bureaucracy is larger. The wealthy subsidize the poorer. With socialism there is usually some overlap between the markets and government. Under communism the government owns all capital, controls all trading and provides for all the needs of society, there is no invisible hand. With communism the government is the market.

It doesn't surprise me that greenpeace opposes carbon capture and storage. They also oppose removing the stored carbon from the earth and releasing it. Have you ever heard them being for something? I hear they are opposed to world peace, and respecting your elders.

Yes I was posting you. You quoted me responding to a post from someone else, so I assumed that you took issue with that post. I was in fact not post about environmentalists being against carbon capture. I was actually saying that their fears might be lessened if they looked at carbon capture and the promise it holds for addressing the problem that is causing them distress. If you actually read the post I don't see how you missed that.

Capitalism, socialism and communism are economic systems and do not address different styles of government such as democracy or dictatorship. Capitalism does not directly address roads, electrical systems ,border security water and sewer systems etc., because they are not in the sole interest of the individual. All the economic systems need to be partnered with a government that takes care of shared needs. With capitalism it is everyone for themselves, you make money and you keep it, and you take care of your own needs. With socialism there is usually a mix of free enterprise, and public enterprise (government owned businesses), and the government provides most of services such as education and healthcare. It does this through increased taxation, which is essentially a sharing of wealth, since the taxes are generally progressive. Under communism all enterprises are owned by the government and all services are provided by the government. Everyone receives a wage to purchase food clothing and shelter, and all infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. is supplied by the government. Socialism is largely a middle ground between capitalism and communism. Nazi Germany was a military dictatorship, and economic systems were not largely designed to provide for the populous. The nazis were mainly interested in supplying the military, and partnered with businesses usually forming cartels, or monopolies that were easier for them to control. It is not a pure economic model, and is not typified by capitalism socialism or communism.

While the many are wandering hopelessly in despair saying that man made climate change will kill us all, there are the few who are working on a solution. The solution might be to make carbon reduction profitable. https://thebossmagazine.com/algae-carbon-capture/ Like other plants, algae take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. In fact, really all that’s required for algae to thrive are CO2, light, and water. AI company Hypergiant has designed the EOS bioreactor to be a self-contained carbon capture machine. By controlling water flow and light exposure, AI regulates the algae growth so it doesn’t spill out of the container, which doesn’t need constant supervision. Operating at peak efficiency, the EOS bioreactor can take as much CO2 out of the air as an acre of trees. Users can harvest the algae for use in fertilizer, animal feed, and even human dietary supplements. Hypergiant’s plan is to bring to market a bioreactor that users can assemble themselves, with all the units sharing information with each other to improve efficiency. https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/carbon-offsets/ What is a carbon offset? A carbon offset is a credit for emissions reductions given to one party that can be sold to another party to compensate for its emissions. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tonnes of CO2-equivalents and are bought and sold through international brokers, online retailers and trading platforms. If companies could use carbon capture to produce saleable products, and also earn carbon credits which major emitters would be required to purchase, we could make serious progress toward aaddressing the problem.

The poster said "It truly is a scary thing when it comes to the idea of climate change and people not realizing how our planet is slowing being destroyed." I was trying to lead him to information about work being done on a solution that might provide hope for the planet. I assume that you take issue with that.

It seems to me that a much of the conflict from colonization was the result of the industrialized world meeting hunter gatherer societies. They could not coexist.

Doesn't that make it racist?

You might want to get up to speed on carbon capture.

The main failure was an inappropriate response to the virus. The problem is that the WHO is fighting covid19 using the measures used on the 1918 H1N1 influenza virus. Covid19 is not that virus. It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus (H1N1). The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide. Covid19 has infected 83,716 of the world's 7,800,000 people, or 1.07% of the world's population. Of the resolved cases 3% died. In 1918 3.3% of the world's population died. So far with covid19 0.02% or the world's population has died. Clearly we need a response tailored to this infection, not one that ended 100 years ago. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html#:~:text=It is estimated that about,occurring in the United States. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The problem is that the WHO is fighting covid19 using the measures used on the 1918 H1N1 influenza virus. Covid19 is not that virus. It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus (H1N1). The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide. Covid19 has infected 83,716 of the world's 7,800,000 people, or 1.07% of the world's population. Of the resolved cases 3% died. In 1918 3.3% of the world's population died. So far with covid19 0.02% or the world's population has died. Clearly we need a response tailored to this infection, not one that ended 100 years ago. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html#:~:text=It is estimated that about,occurring in the United States. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The reason that ww1 lasted so long, was the abandonment of the infantry square. European wars were traditionally fought by the opposing sides forming battle formations within sight of each other, and fighting like men. They would happily shoot each other until one side decided they would sooner be some place else. In 1914 the cowards dug ditches, and hid in them. This meant that if one side attacked the other, they became the better targets, and the results were generally unsatisfactoy. It became largely a war of attrition.

Why do you keep saying that when you know that it isn't true? Do you have memory problems, or just like to tell stories? There are 384 hospitals in Ontario, and 1235 hospitalizations for covid19. 3.3 per hospital on average, of these 337 are in intensive care, slightly less than one per hospital on average. I know that we have visited this before, so I must assume that you are deficient in some capacity. If a hospital can't provide the necessary beds, perhaps they could treat cut fingers, or sprained ankles in an area set aside in a community center, or temporary shelter, and make space available in the hospital. I don't know how to make that simpler for you. https://www.statista.com/statistics/440923/total-number-of-hospital-establishments-in-canada-by-province/ https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data

It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism. One of the principles of capitalism (or more properly free enterprise) is the invisible hand theory introduced by Scottish economist Adam Smith in the 18th century. Definition The unobservable market force that helps the demand and supply of goods in a free market to reach equilibrium automatically is the invisible hand. Description The phrase invisible hand was introduced by Adam Smith in his book 'The Wealth of Nations'. He assumed that an economy can work well in a free market scenario where everyone will work for his/her own interest. He explained that an economy will comparatively work and function well if the government will leave people alone to buy and sell freely among themselves. He suggested that if people were allowed to trade freely, self interested traders present in the market would compete with each other, leading markets towards the positive output with the help of an invisible hand. In a free market scenario where there are no regulations or restrictions imposed by the government, if someone charges less, the customer will buy from him. Therefore, you have to lower your price or offer something better than your competitor. Whenever enough people demand something, it will be supplied by the market and everyone will be happy. The seller end up getting the price and the buyer will get better goods at the desired price. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/invisible-hand The benefit of free enterprise is that people are self motivated, and there is not a need for a large bureaucracy, which can consume resources while providing no goods or services. The downside of unrestricted free enterprise is that it distributes wealth unevenly, and doesn't provide by itself provide infrastructure (roads, electrical services sewers etc,), healthcare education and other things hat need to be provided by and for everyone. Free enterprise needs to be partnered with government, which taxes those able to pay them, and use the proceeds to provide the community with needed services. Soscialism is a belief that wealth should be distributed more fairly, and there is an emphasis to tax more, and provide more services with less, or even no need for those receiving the benefits to pay for them. The downside is that it reduces the incentive for people to work as hard at providing goods and services, because they keep less of the benefits from their labours. Socialism also requires a larger bureaucracy, and results in more government control Communism is the belief that all a nation's resources should be owned collectively with everyone sharing equally and the government providing all needed services and resources evenly. The downside to communism is that it provides the least amount of personal incentive. It also usually results in a very large bureaucracy, and a small elite power group with aauthority over almost everything. One problem that I saw with communism, was while visting Cuba. The Soviet Union was a major sponsor of Cuba, but when their economy was failing Cuba lost much of it's funding. Their respocse was to rely more on tourism. Under communism everyone was paid the same wether you were a bartender, or a doctor. The difference was that bartenders got tips. Many doctors stopped practicing medicine to become bartenders, lawyers became taxi drivers etc.. The great reset is a plan developed by a small elite power group tht meets in Davos Switzerland every year in January. It is called a plan to build a better post covid19 world. Of course this elite wants to controll this project. They are of course not elected by anyone. The meeting brings together some 3,000 business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to five days to discuss global issues, across 500 sessions. The WEF's mission is stated as "committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum

The assertion was that the climate change controversy led to more taxes. I assumed bcsapper meant that it increased our tax burden. If that is not what he meant then I was mistaken. You seemed to counter this by saying that marginal tax rates have gone down. I said that marginal tax rates are not a measure of our tax burden, and even the amount of tax we pay is not a true measure of our tax burden. Not paying your bills doesn't make them go away, and we are not paying our bills. I was trying to address what I believed to be a mistaken assertion. If that is a drift then I am guilty of that.

Are you confusing marginal tax rates with tax burden? Marginal tax rates are the amount of tax payed in different tax brackets, and are reduced when tax brackets are adjusted to account for inflation. The average tax burden for Canadians has dropped this year, because average income has dropped this year. This is of course a temporary situation, because federal debt has risen substantially, and income is way down. The debt is up, and corporate taxes are way down. Personal income taxes will have to rise, and services like healthcare and education will need to be cut to start paying off the debt. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/tax-freedom-day-2020-report#:~:text=In 2020%2C the Balanced Budget,Day arrives on July 26. Canadians are right to be thinking about the tax implications of the $315.2 billion in projected federal and provincial government deficits in 2020. For this reason, we calculated a Balanced Budget Tax Freedom Day, the day on which average Canadians would start working for themselves if governments were obliged to cover current expenditures with current taxation. In 2020, the Balanced Budget Tax Freedom Day arrives on July 26.