oops

If you lock down, and close the hospitals, no one gets treated. If you leave the hospitals open, and have a need for space, you could move emergency patients to space in community centers or temporary shelters, move post op to the emergency rooms, and use the beds made available for ICU. If you want to reduce hospitalizations, do more testing, and isolate the appropriate people. Of course hospital professionals would know better how to make appropriate space available if they were not too busy running around crying "the sky is falling."

Of course you are correct. The math is actually correct if you add three zeroes to the infections number. I was not intentionally misleading, just not much of a typist.

Somewhat off topic, but water can be heated to 700 degrees Fahrenheit and is non toxic. A very little amount of water could destroy a lot of tumor. If it was that easy someone smarter than me would have thought of it a long time ago, right? Superheated water is liquid water under pressure at temperatures between the usual boiling point, 100 °C (212 °F) and the critical temperature, 374 °C (705 °F). It is also known as "subcritical water" or "pressurized hot water." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheated_water#:~:text=Superheated water is liquid water,C (705 °F).

Makes testing seem all the more important.

Doesn't sound true to me.

I don't know why I believe anything you say. 351, 000 Americans out of a population of 382,000,000 have died from covid19. That is just under one tenth of one percent. I don't know if you are incapable of doing math, or incapable of telling the truth. https://www.google.com/search?q=us+covid+deaths&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA911CA911&oq=us+covid+deaths&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j0i131i433l2j0l4.7321j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+us&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA911CA911&oq=population+of+us&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i67i457j0i67l3j0l2j69i61.13727j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 It is becoming apparent why you neglect to provide sources for the imaginary concoctions you post.

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/