Posts by Chris Williams

Forbes Sanctions on Russia still Aren’t Working

I suppose everything the USA and the West have actually managed to achieve through these sanctions boils down to this:

- strengthening Putin's standing at home.
- boosting Putin's global reputation while uniting Russia, India, China, South Africa, and others in a shared effort to dismantle the petrodollar.
- crippling the German economy by cutting off the cheap energy its industries once relied on.
- essentially undermining the strength of the entire EU by eroding Germany's economic backbone.
- and perhaps most significantly, the USA may have inadvertently surrendered its status as the sole global hegemon, paving the way for a multipolar world with multiple centers of power.

darkwalker1 said:Last year, Russia pumped about 150 billion cubic meters of gas into the European Union.

Time to do something truly extraordinary here. I’m going to shatter my personal annual record for reading comprehension and actually sit down to read that article I linked about Chinese imports of Russian gas. Best regards.

The text clearly distinguishes between gas and oil.

Try again.

The point is: all that oil from the 27 European Union nations has already found its buyers. Meanwhile, China has increased its imports via the existing Sila Sibir 1 pipeline and is investing alongside Russia in the new Sila Sibir 2.

I suppose you truly believe all that massive oil and gas is just going to sit there rotting in Russia's backyard.

Michael Ortiz68 said:Here is another one 🤦

How exactly did they reroute everything to China and India? Through which pipelines?

I said oil and Gas ... not just Gas. As for oil

India and China now account for over half of All Russia's seaborne oil exports.

Russia is now China's biggest supplier of oil , taking over fra Saud Arabia in 2022.

in March this year , Combined oil imports by China and India fra Russia overtook those fra The 27 EU member states

Regarding Gas, there has been a major announcement regarding increased deliveries to China through Sila Sibir 1, which is expected to begin by mid-December this year; additionally, the construction of the new Sila Sibir 2 pipeline has been agreed upon, which will take some time, but it seems quite clear that China is investing heavily and remains interested.

I suppose anyone would be interested in access to an unlimited supply of Gas from next door.

China’s Russian gas imports jump in first 8 months, while LNG exports hit record levels amid supply diversions
China’s natural gas imports from Russia via pipeline almost tripled in the first eight months to US$2.39 billion

casualtiger2 said:@Chris Williams
Everything you’re saying here has already been debunked on this forum—more than once.
Russia still has enough cash to keep fighting for maybe another two years,
though honestly, they’ll probably collapse both militarily and economically within a year.
Europe is going to hit a pretty serious crisis, but things should normalize in a year or two.
Catch you in a year.
PS
There won't be any negotiations until that evil little gnome retreats from Ukraine (which means getting out of Crimea, too).

Yeah... "debunked on the forum"... listen to you... such a hotbed of information...

Ukraine will never be the same again; that part is settled.

No matter how you look at it, they've lost both the war and the territory. It’s nothing historically unusual. Just watch how Europe pulses, breathes, and metabolizes, and observe how borders are constantly shifting. Time lapse.

The few decades we spend on this planet simply aren't enough to truly grasp how fluid borders are and how nothing is ever truly a permanent status quo.

And I suppose you're underestimating Russia.

Mind you, don't go thinking I'm rooting for them; I'm not, nor am I rooting for a West led by the Satans of the deep state.

I find myself rooting for the little guy, everywhere—those who suffer when, as Balasevic might say, the kings play at war.

But then again, humans have always fought wars because we are an inherently aggressive, predatory species. I think these phenomena need to be viewed through a much broader lens, casualtiger2. Not just from a high altitude, but looking deep into our past.

From that perspective, every empire eventually collapsed in some horrific war; none of them survived indefinitely.

And no shift in the global order has ever occurred without the destruction of cities, the killing of people, and the redrawing of maps.

If there are no negotiations and no lifting of sanctions, we are going to witness a massive crisis in Western nations. Someone who is well-funded will likely navigate it with a moderate amount of stress, but for the poor and middle class, it will be devastating.

We'll see who was right in a year's time.... or perhaps even by January 2023.

Grace Phillips25 said:The number you should actually be looking at is how much of the global economy those 45 countries actually control.

I mean, sure, the USA, Germany, and France—they all count as "one country" in these stats, but so do Vanuatu, Burkina Faso, and the Green Island...

Sure, if you look at the 45 countries sanctioning Russia, you have places like Romania, Canada, the Baltic states, Albania, Mexico, Mexico, and maybe even a tiny little state like a small US territory... for all of them, prosperity seems to be nothing more than a pipe dream.

Whether it’s the price of oil, gas, flour, nickel, gold, aluminum, or certain fertilizers—all things Russia has in massive abundance—the costs remain consistent everywhere, and those 145 other countries representing 6 billion people aren't having any trouble importing them.

I suppose Putin miscalculated by underestimating the West when he started this war, while the West perhaps also misjudged the Russians.

I suspect they will eventually come to their senses and begin negotiating (without the interference of those Satanists from the USA), because otherwise, whoever is left will be stuck trying to hunt radioactive deer through the woods with next to no money.

casualtiger2 said:Their feelings don't really matter here.
The goal right now is making them harmless—and that’s exactly what sanctions do.
In a year or two, Russia will be economically crippled, which means they won't be able to sustain the war in Ukraine—or anywhere else—for at least the next 15 to 20 years.
That gives everyone else enough time to get ready to defend themselves.
Now, we can only hope they eventually realize who their actual enemy is.

Look, casualtiger2, they aren't going to buckle. The Russians have just redirected the oil and gas that the European Union isn't buying toward India and China. It's the same with grain and those essential rare metals everyone needs. The European Union has about 477 million people, whereas India and China alone represent over 2 billion. Then you have the other 148 nations—including Turkey, Israel, Mexico, all of Africa, Asia, and Latin America—none of whom have imposed sanctions.

The USA has to maintain the petrodollar because there’s no other backing for the dollar, so they ensure things stay this way by fueling conflict rather than pursuing negotiation, which any rational actor would do instead of throwing gasoline on the fire.

The real objective seems to be for the USA to weaken the European Union, specifically Germany, while exhausting Russia, all while keeping China as the ultimate target... and they're managing the whole thing through maneuvering without having to fire a single shot so far.

Unless everyone else kneels, they'll have to act this way just to maintain their status and avoid bankruptcy.

So, if you look closely at who actually has horns and hooves... you might start to see who the real Satan is in this situation.

analogmarlin4 said:Sanctions aren't going to change much in Russia besides hitting their economy. People over there really despise NATO, and honestly, these sanctions might just end up fueling even more resentment.

I suppose sanctions won't lead to any meaningful shifts, not even on an economic level. Out of nearly 200 nations globally, only about 45 have signed on to sanction Russia. That leaves roughly 150 countries that haven't. It suggests that Russia still has plenty of places to export its oil, gas, precious metals, food, and other resources.

We’ll see the actual impact of these sanctions quite soon, probably within weeks. Of those 45 countries, 27 are part of the European Union, which includes small players like us here in America. This winter, we might witness how these sanctions end up crippling economies, manufacturing, and industry, essentially dragging everyone back a century—unless, of course, all parties decide to sit down at the negotiating table.

I’ve heard reports coming out of Germany about people scavenging fallen branches from forests just to stay warm, yet the government forbids it, as if they can't be trusted touching state-owned timber.

A government that fails to protect its own citizens is merely providing a hollow gesture toward protecting Ukraine. It all seems like games played by the military-industrial-banking complex in the USA, where we are all—including those ineffective politicians in the EU—just puppets dancing to their tune. And yes, that includes poor Ukraine as well.

If you ask me, sanctions are producing results, but it isn't Russia feeling the sting—it's us in the EU. So, I guess you should consider who the real enemy actually is....

Thomas Nelson25 said:I get it. You think maybe "normalcy" is actually dangerous? (At least for people with a soul.)

Anyway, speaking of being alone.

It can manifest as art, spirituality, or even religion—basically just ways to sublimate (you know, escape) normalcy.
Personally, I'm more into a sort of internal alchemy.

I suppose normalcy is essentially just sleepwalking. If one pays even the slightest attention to that background chatter in the mind, it becomes apparent that it is just an unrelenting stream of associations—one that is, at its core, just as fragmented and unpredictable as a dream. No one can truly predict their next thought. Those thoughts trigger emotional responses within us, and those reactions, in turn, produce either pleasure or suffering. That is our version of normalcy. It is sleep.

Speaking of solitude...

It might manifest as art, or perhaps spirituality, or even religion acting as a channel for the sublimation of normalcy. I personally prefer a sort of alchemy.

My view is that anything capable of jolting us out of that slumber is useful, provided we actually desire that kind of evolutionary leap for ourselves.

Regarding art, I suspect that when we are genuinely creative, it brings us to the same state as meditation. In those moments, everything else ceases to exist except the act of creation itself; once all that compulsive mental noise settles, we enter "the zone." We become a mere conduit—in that state, we are truly awake, an ecstatic observer of whatever the universe is manifesting through us. Many artists experience this... though, I suppose, entering that zone isn't always easy. Then again, you can find that same flow while just peeling potatoes.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Chris Williams
What's this "certain threshold" thing supposed to mean?

One really ought to confront absolute solitude and whatever processes occur within us during that time.

Most people seem terrified of being alone because, to them, it feels synonymous with the suffering of loneliness. When there is no one else around, the mind tends to start dredging up all the mental refuse we have accumulated over the years. I suspect the mind doesn't truly exist; what we call the mind is merely a stream of thoughts composed of memories and fantasies.

These thoughts aren't actually ours. They belong to society. They are acquired—parasitic constructs born from social conditioning and sustained by our identification with them. This identification is what creates a personality.

When others are absent and the mind begins to fracture, it marks the beginning of the collapse of the personality, leaving us to face a revolting void. To move through that void, to enter that silence, is to cross a threshold; it is an initiation, a leap into the darkness, a plunge into the unknown. Death.

What actually occurs is quite beautiful, I guess. That death is the beginning of the birth of individuality, bliss, true happiness, and a sense of ease in existence.

bluemason3 said:Usually, we’re talking about the three jewels of dharma. Shastra is essentially a subgenre of literature, primarily within Hinduism. You find some versions in Mahayana Buddhism too, though they aren't considered foundational texts there. And obviously, when people mention this, they aren't referring to general heresy that just leads you astray; they mean specific Buddhist BDS frameworks. 🧐 😬 🤣

As for the second point, there's two sides to it. On one hand, humans are tribal creatures. We feel good being part of a group, and those communities bond through shared myths, taboos, rituals, and the like. The tighter the connection within the group, the "stronger" we feel.

On the other hand, that same thing traps us in an ideological and social bubble. It makes us feel alienated from the rest of society, heightens our biases against outside ideas, and ultimately stunts our ability to think critically.

We are social creatures, so I suppose avoiding society isn't really possible, nor should we attempt to act against our own nature.

But then again, if one intends to evolve, there are these two opposing forces... the natural drive to socialize and the striving toward samospoznaja, which, to achieve, requires us to shed what society has imposed upon us. ....

Society shapes us by dictating who we should be and defining our identity, whereas individuation is a departure from the comfortable coexistence of the herd toward a cave where there is no one to define us from the outside... In certain stages of spiritual growth, I imagine both paths can be painful. In the herd, it's suffocating, and in the cave, one might just go mad.

Once a certain threshold is crossed, I suppose both states become manageable. People can love others while still finding peace in solitude.

silverotter592 said:Hey there,
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this, and I wanted to ask everyone: how much substance do you actually find when you hang out with people who are on their own spiritual journey? I mean, when it comes to really opening up and sharing the highs and lows of life across the board—is there any actual depth there? From what I’ve seen personally, every single person I’ve run into who claims to be into spirituality seems to have already picked a specific religion or a certain niche movement to cling to, and honestly, it feels like they aren't actually looking for genuine, soul-level friendship. It feels more like they just want to recruit anyone they meet into their little group or community. So, I'm curious, what has your experience been like in your day-to-day interactions with others who are also walking this path?

The Buddha taught that there are three essential supports for a seeker: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. That is to say, the teacher, the teachings, and the community of like-minded individuals.

I suppose I feel similarly; certain people in our circle serve as support along the way.

In fact, I think it might be better to remain alone than to surround yourself with idiots.

I have two friends who serve as my Sangha—my loves, my treasure, my spiritual brother and sister. Our bond has been cultivated over many years; we grew up together, evolved together, changed together, learned together, and read the same books. Yet, despite all that, we were never so tied to one another that we became inseparable. I don't think inseparability is a good thing. Nor do I care for excessive familiarity.

Regarding groups—I am part of a small sisterhood that meets virtually from all over the world for shared spiritual work. That feminine esoteric energy created through contact during spiritual practice is truly nourishing for the soul.

By its very nature, that energy is soft, loving, warm, gentle, relaxing, and peaceful. It is mystical. Together, we become more than just a collection of individuals.

Such experiences create synchronized souls on the same vibration. If someone among us possessed a certain masculine assertiveness—someone wanting to moderate, motivate, direct, teach, correct, or intellectually dominate—the whole thing would likely fall apart quite quickly.

So, I guess it is best to find people from your own "spiritual family," or perhaps just let a higher power bring you together.

I only advocate for this kind of connection as nourishment for the spirit, though I also support solitude. Solitude is equally beautiful. Perhaps the best approach is to balance both.

I suppose one could argue that the current situation might be more complex than it initially appears, though I suspect most people aren't interested in looking that closely. Maybe we should consider if there's actually any substance to these claims, or if it's all just noise.

bluemason3 I suppose I should mention that... That’s a different matter entirely. I suppose there will always be varying perspectives on what constitutes the best response, but the real issue seems to be that there are simply too many conflicting opinions regarding whether this will end up being a total disaster. If nine out of ten doctors tell you there's a high probability of sepsis, while only one suggests otherwise, I guess it might make more sense to prioritize the majority opinion, though perhaps it depends on the specific clinical context.

It isn't really a matter of nine out of ten doctors being right; rather, it is the WHO that provides the suggestions and protocols to governments on how to manage a pandemic. Our task force simply follows those specific guidelines. I guess it's worth noting that the WHO has been under fire for years for being slow, bogged down by bureaucracy, and perhaps too focused on political correctness—not to mention they have a history of making incorrect assessments and maybe failing to listen sufficiently to the top-tier experts they actually have on hand.

I suppose one could argue that this approach might be considered somewhat flawed, though I can't say for certain. Perhaps it is simply a matter of perspective, if that makes any sense.

I suppose the Korean model is simply impossible to implement at this stage, given how much time has already passed, plus there is the lingering question of whether most nations even possess the infrastructure required to support such massive testing scales. Generally speaking, the market is suffering from a lack of available tests, and I suspect that not all countries maintain equal levels of medical, scientific, or industrial capacity relative to their population size; besides, from what I can gather, the testing methodologies themselves seem to be in a state of constant flux.

And who exactly is to blame here? I guess the WHO is facing a massive amount of backlash because back in January, they reportedly played nice with the Chinese and claimed there was zero evidence that this disease jumped from animals to humans. It seems like the world lost some incredibly precious time because of their negligence, though I suppose some might even suggest there was actual corruption involved, perhaps driven by those massive donations coming out of China.

It isn't the case that every single nation follows this exact pattern, so I suppose I don't quite grasp why they insist on pushing this identical total lockdown model onto every country globally. In a somewhat naive, layman's sense, I find myself wondering if we shouldn't perhaps transition toward one of those other two alternative models instead. We are looking at roughly fifty cases a day right now. If eighty percent of those people are experiencing mild symptoms or none at all—which implies only twenty percent are actually showing significant signs—then practically speaking, out of every fifty people, there might be just one individual coughing or running a fever, and it seems unlikely that anyone would actually die from it.

I suppose we’re only looking at twenty-five deaths, though most of them were likely elderly or already dealing with significant health issues to begin with.

I suppose there are roughly thirty people currently on ventilators.

I suppose it’s worth noting that in America, annual flu fatalities reach about 500 people, with roughly 60,000 cases occurring each year.

They’re focusing entirely on protecting retirees from the pandemic, while hospitals have basically stopped performing surgeries and diagnostics altogether. Everyone is acting as if this situation is exactly like what happened in Italy or New York City. I guess we might end up losing more people because tumors went undetected, atrial fibrillation was missed, or life-saving MRIs weren't performed, rather than from the virus itself.

I suppose you aren't even allowed to have a toothache these days without someone worrying about how it might relate to Corona.

They don't seem to have the guts to act now that the numbers are low—to scale back or pivot to a different strategy—but instead, they just sit there waiting. We’re seeing an average of maybe fifty cases, yet for days on end, they’ve been insisting we’re in some sort of critical window and that a massive peak is just around the corner. I guess they're just stalling.

Fifty grandmothers and grandfathers have come down with Corona. They’re reporting quite dramatically that almost all of them are experiencing only mild symptoms. One 93-year-old woman with severe heart disease passed away. Sometimes I feel like I'm living through an episode of Monty Python; I wonder if someone is playing some kind of joke on us. With 150,000 layoffs, 600,000 people relying on minimum wage, the federal treasury draining dry, and our exports and manufacturing completely stalling, I suppose the fragile pension funds might just collapse. If this persists, there may be food shortages by autumn, yet they keep us confined to our homes because of about fifty cases a day that mostly involve people without any significant symptoms.

I get where you're coming from; I'm not necessarily saying you're right or wrong, but there are just too many unknowns involved... I suppose I'm just venting here on the forum—I've grown pretty tired of being stuck inside, especially since the police won't grant me a permit to head out to my cabin for the weekend. 🙂

bluemason3

bluemason3 said:Of course science isn't dogma. Everything should be open to scrutiny. But you can't critique what you don't understand. An Amazonian tribesman who thinks airplanes are just giant birds and that the Earth is flat isn't in any position to judge NASA's space programs.

I think anyone who has actually achieved a decent level of competence in anything would realize that.

Take judging musical talent, for example—though art is obviously much more subjective than science. My perspective changed completely after years of immersion. Before that, you mostly just follow whatever dogmatic, herd-like consensus is floating around. If you hear twenty times that Hendriks is the greatest ever, you'll believe it, even if every "guitar god" from the 80s was technically far superior. Beyond that, I’ve watched how assessments of guitarists (which I am not) shift as they evolve, even after decades of disciplined, 12-hour-a-day practice. The more you master your own craft, the more you recognize it in others.

If someone asked me who the best chess player in history is—or even today, when I barely remember how the pieces move, if I can even recall that—and I can only name three players from history, none of them currently active, I would either have to say I have no opinion at all or admit my opinion is foolish and baseless. I don't need to be at the top of the rankings to have an opinion, but I do need to be at a certain level where I have a systematic understanding of the game and its history. Otherwise, I’m just regurgitating impressions left by some media outlet.

Studying applied mathematics and statistics (as an adult, through extracurricular study) fundamentally shifted my understanding, much like music or religion did, regarding (certain) scientific claims and debates. It provides the foundation (for good work) of scientific methodology and data processing. No matter how much popular science I read before, I lacked the tools to truly grasp things. Listening to debates back then gave me a totally different impression than I would have now; arguments that once seemed rock-solid now seem incredibly weak, simply because I understand probability better. And the funniest part? I used to be much more confident in my own judgments than I am now. But even with a relatively basic level of knowledge, I can't convey it to someone in an online debate. I'm not sure I could even do it in a few hours of video content. If someone isn't willing to spend several years studying, there is no basis for a deep explanation (depending on the required depth of the discussion, admittedly).

Naturally, reaching a PhD level would bring even more significant shifts in perspective. That level allows for the evaluation of certain universal elements of research found in many fields, even if one can't judge the niche specifics of a single discipline. To evaluate medical research, I’d need to spend several more years studying specialized biostatistics or public health studies. Even with my current level being well above a casual consumer of science, I'm not capable of that, nor do I attempt it. But to even know that you don't know something, you first have to know something. It’s a strange paradox.

So, nobody is saying you should follow blindly. Science is, by definition, open to criticism and verification. But to criticize and verify, you need a minimum baseline of knowledge. If you want to dive into this, you have to dedicate anywhere from five to twenty years of serious, daily, structured study to the subject, depending on your starting point.

Of course, no one is stopping you from having an opinion on anything. But it's mostly just delusional self-deception if you take those opinions too seriously.

That comparison simply doesn't apply here. Not at all...

A more appropriate analogy might be this: imagine someone has a massive ulcer or a deep wound on their leg—severely inflamed tissue that could lead to sepsis. Most doctors tell them, "To be safe, you need to amputate the leg." That would certainly heal the ulcer and eliminate the danger. However, a small minority of doctors argue—since you'll lose the leg anyway, let's just try treating the ulcer instead. So, what I am questioning is whether amputation is actually better than treatment, based on the arguments provided to me. I don't need a PhD in anything to exercise basic common sense.

And now, governments are fueling mass hysteria and madness by locking people under house arrest. Life has come to a standstill; they are amputating the economy, gutting industry, and threatening the very foundations of an already fragile global economy, even risking social order itself. They risk famine and poverty, potentially bankrupting nations, all just to reduce what is claimed to be high mortality.

"Claimed," because so far, the death toll relative to 7 billion people isn't even particularly high compared to the seasonal flu. As a consequence of these decisions—the scale of which we can't even fathom—we will be living in a post-Corona era for years, much like the person who had to have their leg cut off because most doctors insisted it was the only way to deal with an ulcer.

Regarding an approach that avoids amputating everything everywhere, and why I find the alternative more logical: look at South Korea. They didn't shut down their entire economy; they implemented a different model. I won't go into too much detail, but you can see it here.

And then look at Sweden, which barely does anything at all, yet their numbers are similar to countries where citizens are forced to hide in their apartments like mice while police drive them back home if they dare to take a walk in the park.

We only have about 4 million people here, a tiny nation with a population roughly the size of two neighborhoods in Tokyo (which has 34 million people). When Alma is asked why they aren't testing more, as the Koreans do, she philosophizes that it's pointless and disagrees with the method, claiming it's not the right way. You don't need a doctorate to see that the Korean approach yields results, while she just talks in circles without providing real arguments for why we should amputate our legs instead of saving them. A monkey just does what a monkey sees.

bluemason3 said:It’s a classic Dunning-Kruger scenario: to actually judge an expert's opinion, you really need to be operating at their level of expertise first.

Since I’m not some PhD epidemiologist from Harvard, do I even have enough foundational knowledge to make a fair assessment? Or am I just going to find something subjectively appealing because it aligns with my irrational biases or personality traits? (For instance, people who lean toward alternative or anti-establishment ideas will instinctively feel a sense of "kinship" with anything that pushes back against the establishment, driven by emotional solidarity long before they ever get to the rationalization phase where they justify their actual motives).

Keeping that in mind—and since I lack the credentials to judge—it seems more sensible to stick with the mainstream than to fight it. Sure, the mainstream can be wrong; it’s certainly happened before. But statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability that the 99.6% of PhD epidemiologists with legitimate scientific credentials are right, rather than the 0.4% who disagree plus two local doctors who aren't even in that specialty.

When you present this logic, the standard rebuttal is to point to instances where the mainstream was dead wrong and the "dissidents" were right. There's no denying those cases exist, but I think that’s a flawed argument. It feels less like a rational choice and more like a way to rationalize an irrational, emotional predisposition toward being anti-establishment:

1) Some of those historical examples are simply too old to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error. It’s hard to compare today’s system to how things worked 50 years ago.

2) Isolated incidents are just that—isolated. To use them as a basis for generalization, we would need a massive data set proving that "dissidents" are right most of the time, not just occasionally. Instead, people take a single outlier or a handful of cases from the entire history of science and use them to make a sweeping rule, while ignoring the actual average and the millions of instances where the scientific consensus was correct, leaving the endless "unsupported claims" in the dust.

So, bottom line: while the consensus could absolutely be wrong—especially in a situation filled with unknowns and poorly understood phenomena—following the guidance and assessments coming from the current dominant viewpoint is the most pragmatic move. Any corrections to those views should follow the corrections made by the scientific community itself as they gather more data and conduct more research. After all, we're dealing with something new that nobody fully understands yet.

I think your basic premise carries this sort of dogmatic tone regarding different social strata.

The idea is that we should just believe whatever scientists say,
and follow whatever they recommend,
simply because we aren't on their level to question their judgment.

Unquestioning respect for authority without any pushback from independent thought is something you usually only see in religion.

And apparently, in this day and age, mere mortals aren't allowed to question science.

If you were to question the truth of something written in the Bible, you’d be called a heretic; but if you don't trust the scientific mainstream to know what they're doing, it's dismissed as a Dunning-Kruger case. It seems to me these are just mechanisms used by ordinary people to police one another through ridicule, effectively creating a class of untouchable golden idols.

Everything should be subject to scrutiny, especially when the adherents of the scientific consensus start seizing control over our lives—when three politicians independently decide our fate, when we are locked in our homes for our own good, when the police clear us from public spaces, or when our fundamental rights to movement, work, business, and social interaction are stripped away. In those moments, I guess we shouldn't just wonder what is happening; we’d be fools not to ask.

In that spirit, if you've decided the mainstream is right, that's your business, but the argument that "they all agree, so they must be right because they are all epidemiologists" doesn't really hold water.

They don't actually know the exact origin of COVID, they make wild guesses about infection rates, and they don't even know the true number of infections worldwide since testing protocols vary so much between countries. Consequently, they can't even pin down an accurate mortality rate. Tests aren't foolproof; sometimes you get a false negative, sometimes a false positive. They don't know if the Chinese person lied, what happened with asymptomatic carriers, or if younger people are quietly building collective immunity through minor symptoms while staying under the radar... in the US, people are often only counted as cases if they go to the hospital and test positive, and those who died of cancer or heart disease but had COVID are labeled as COVID deaths. Why? They won't let people into parks, yet they allow crowds in retail stores. They can't explain why COVID suddenly stopped being so infectious in China, claiming it will last until the end of the year, though in reality, it might just last until summer. It isn't "over" until a vaccine is found. Actually, it's only over if the curve flattens, and even then, you have to keep it flattened...

If you trust the scientific mainstream simply because there are many of them and they are highly educated experts, you might miss how little they actually know, and how they only seem to agree on one thing—locking people up indefinitely.

Until when? Until a vaccine arrives... or until a total economic collapse occurs.

Well, precisely because they don't know so much, I guess we need to hear a second opinion.

1) Part of those arguments is far too outdated to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error; it feels difficult to compare today's system to something from fifty years ago.

I’m not sure who was bringing up cases from fifty years ago. I wasn't doing that; my focus has been entirely on everything that's surfaced within the last couple of years.

So, to wrap this up—and I could certainly be wrong here, especially given how many unknowns and poorly understood phenomena we're dealing with—I suppose following the current dominant consensus and its prevailing guidance is probably the most pragmatic route. Any adjustments to those views should really just follow the shifts in mainstream thought as the scientific community gathers more data and more research becomes available, since we are ultimately dealing with something entirely new that nobody truly understands yet.

Yes—given all the uncertainty, the lack of data, and the sheer amount of what we don't know, it might be more practical to just stick with the mainstream. Personally, I find those thinking outside the box to be much more compelling.

So, what now? Nothing.

neonmarlin39 said:Look, let's just wait a few years and then we'll have a much clearer picture of the stats. You're pulling numbers based on a pretty tiny window of time, which is wrong from the jump. The reality is, looser restrictions lead to more infections and higher mortality—we've already seen that happen.

That mostly just shows the measures weren't handled well to begin with. In a perfect world, you'd test everyone and isolate every single infected person so they couldn't spread it, keeping healthy people safe without forcing them into quarantine or tanking the economy. Or even better, those strict measures should have been hit hard right at the start before the virus went global. That would've worked best and prevented this whole mess. But the timing was totally botched because of politics and weak institutions that should've jumped on it immediately. Instead, they reacted way too late, covering things up and downplaying the situation while the virus was still contained in a relatively small area—like if they had just locked down that specific area in China to stop it from spreading further.

The current lockdowns are basically just moving deck chairs on the Titanic—political games and trying to keep things calm just so an unprepared healthcare system doesn't collapse. Governments and institutions don't want to admit they failed to act fast and prepared from day one, making them practically responsible for this global disaster. Not only won't they admit it, but they're hypocritically patting themselves on the back like they nailed it. Like I said, just looking at our own situation: by the time things were getting ugly in Italy, the borders were wide open, and people were traveling back and forth for tourism like nothing was happening. Meanwhile, the guys in charge here are bragging about how great their response was. They didn't. It's an undeniable fact—they messed up right at the start, and now we're all going to pay the price...

Look...

Almost every country, except for Sweden and Belarus, is following the suggestions of the WHO, which, as you pointed out yourself, made a massive error in its initial assessment regarding the virus.

Personally, I find the assessments of respected experts who disagree with the mainstream consensus against drastic isolation measures to be much more convincing.

So, don't think I'm being narrow-minded or pretending to have figured out the virus. I haven't; rather, as someone quite meticulous, I am carefully following all the recommendations to protect myself and my loved ones.

But I don't really trust that they know what they are doing. To me, this quote from the same doctor feels closer to the truth, much like the one in my previous post.

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realize that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

The government’s anti-COVID-19 measures are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

neonmarlin39 said:But it's still worse than the flu. That’s the whole point here—our healthcare system just can't handle that many people getting sick all at once, especially since we don't have enough treatments or vaccines ready to go if everyone catches it. These measures are just a way to slow things down and take the edge off until science and the medical field can catch up. Just try doing the math on what happens if, say, 80% of the global population gets hit... out of 8 billion people. Think about how many hospital beds or doctors actually exist.

If it's true that ten or twenty times more people are actually infected than what is being reported, I suppose that implies:

1. the mortality rate is significantly lower in percentage terms because the pool of infected people is so much larger.

2. the virus is already circulating freely among people with mild or no symptoms, spreading through grocery stores and gas stations—which suggests these measures might be largely futile.

3. the vast majority of deaths—over 90 percent—involved individuals who already had underlying conditions; they weren't killed by this specific virus. Much like any seasonal virus, including all the coronaviruses that have been roaming the planet since the seventies, it primarily claims those who are already vulnerable.

4. regarding the idea that hospitals won't be able to handle everyone needing a ventilator... we are all being judged by the horror of the triage situations seen in Italy, where there weren't enough ventilators for everyone. We're told this happened because the response was too slow.

Perhaps the reason for this doomsday scenario is something else entirely.

For instance, consider this: below is a quote from a letter sent to Merkel in early April by Sucharit Bhakdi, the head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the University of Mainz.

The terrifying scenario in Italy is being used as a benchmark. However, the actual consequences of the virus in that country remain completely unclear for several reasons. There are also specific local factors that make that region particularly vulnerable.

Among these is the severe air pollution in northern Italy. According to a 2006 WHO estimate, air pollution causes an "excess" of 8,000 deaths annually across Italy's 13 largest cities. That hasn't changed much since then. It is well-documented that poor air quality significantly increases the risk of respiratory issues caused by viruses in both young and old populations.

Furthermore, roughly 27.4% of the vulnerable population in Italy lives in multi-generational households, and in Spain, that figure hits 33.5%. For comparison, in Germany, it's only 7%.

Additionally, according to Reinhard Busse, head of health management at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany's intensive care units are equipped 2.5 times better than those in Italy.

I wonder: what efforts are being made to bridge these fundamental differences for the public, and how are we supposed to understand that the scenarios playing out in Italy or Spain aren't actually realistic here?

It seems unlikely they aren't realistic here either, I guess...

neonmarlin39 said:je*eš WHO, they care way more about politics than actual public health or even just telling the truth. The WHO director is basically on the Chinese government's payroll, and he’s already been pushing info that covers things up—just like the Chinese Communist Party does with their data (including death tolls and all that)

Look, those are just the official registered numbers. If you ask me, the actual number of people infected is probably 10 to 20 times higher. This virus only hit the US a few months ago. We won't really see the full picture until it's been circulating for a year, and we're barely at the start of that timeline. So, let's not rush to compare this to the flu just yet... Just wait until everyone stops following these crazy restrictions, and then in maybe 5 or 6 years when the virus has been tearing through the planet, go ahead and make your flu comparison. Then things might actually make sense. 😁

If the number of cases were actually 10 or 20 times larger than what is being reported—meaning we're looking at 16,000 or 32,000 people—then the mortality rate (which stands at 23 people today) would be, I guess, negligibly small.

wearyhawk83 said:I’m not even going to get into debates about why infection numbers aren't skyrocketing everywhere. If the virus is actually under control and there aren't enough hosts left to sustain it—aside from a tiny handful—then that's just how it works. Plus, people are being super careful because nobody wants to deal with that nonsense again. That 0.1% figure? That’s the total mortality rate for the flu, not broken down by age groups.

Look, I’m not speaking from the perspective of American news outlets; I’m looking at all the available data from around the globe. I don't care if the local media is blowing things out of proportion or not. If you want the real deep dive, go search for English-language sources and actual studies. And honestly, since you mentioned questioning everything, I highly recommend you do exactly that—but maybe look beyond the usual domestic sources, especially those "alternative" ones. It’s actually pretty sad that the average citizen doesn't bother learning the basics of how an infection works. You shouldn't need to wait for a crisis in London, Rome, Madrid, or Paris to grasp the basic principle of timely prevention when dealing with something that has a proven exponential spread potential. If mortality rates blow past hospital capacities, you end up with unnecessary deaths in other departments and chaos in ten other sectors. There is no winning combination here; every economy is going to take a massive hit. The only real question is whether we're looking at 10, 100, or a thousand deaths per million people. Either way, everyone loses, regardless of whether some idiots let the virus loose or not.

You don't have to debate anything, but just so we don't end up acting like sheep, one has to wonder—how were roughly 3,000 deaths and 82,000 infections enough to establish herd immunity and make new cases in China negligible, when we know it generally takes two-thirds of a population to get sick and recover to create natural immunity in a country? When you look at those death and infection counts against a population of 1 billion Chinese people, we are talking about fractions of a percent.

Look, I'm not writing from the perspective of American media, but rather from all available global information. I'm not even getting into whether the local news is overhyping things; if you want a deeper dive, you should search for English sources and studies. And actually, precisely because you mentioned re-evaluating things, I would recommend doing exactly that, but using more comprehensive resources than various domestic outlets, especially "contrarian" ones. It’s honestly tragic that the average citizen doesn't inform themselves about the daily realities or the basic mechanisms of an infection; instead, they seemingly need a scenario from the UK, or Italy, or Spain, or France to grasp the simple principle of timely prevention regarding something with proven exponential growth potential and a mortality rate that, once it exceeds capacity, triggers unnecessary deaths in other departments and chaos in ten other fields. There is no winning combination here; every economy is going to take a massive hit, and the only question is whether it will be 10, 100, or a thousand deaths per million residents. Everyone loses regardless, and that remains true whether some idiots let the virus loose or not.

I don't know, wearyhawk83, I find myself wondering. I suppose we will all collectively become wiser in hindsight. The numbers don't add up, the statistics suggest something else entirely, comparing this to the flu makes COVID-19 look ridiculous, and the mortality rates in most countries aren't significantly higher than what is normal.

And then again, we have Lombardy in Italy, Spain, and now that unfortunate stretch in New York City where things were terrible and the numbers were horrific. I think it's a bit simplistic to interpret all of that by saying people just weren't disciplined enough or didn't stay home.

I'm not sure if someone planted the virus; I've read about it, but the arguments from those writing about it seem thin, and there is no actual evidence—it's not even evidence or indications, just pure insinuation. Regardless, the banking, military, pharmaceutical, and other corporate elites certainly won't miss the opportunity to exploit this crisis for their own disgusting agendas. So, I guess we're just headed for trouble on that front too.

@wearyhawk83 I suspect this is all being wildly overstated... The task force claims we’re hitting a peak crisis phase, yet yesterday saw only about thirty new cases. In several states, there hasn't been a single infection.

In nursing homes, mortality from the flu isn't some negligible 0.01%; it’s closer to 8 percent. Here, even those seniors in care facilities seem to be experiencing such mild versions of the illness—we lost one 93-year-old woman, but she had severe heart disease. I wonder why she’s recorded in the statistics as someone who died from COVID-19 rather than someone who passed due to old age or heart failure?

Quarantines have ended in Wuhan, yet new cases continue to emerge—how is it that these new cases aren't triggering exponential growth, nor is the death toll rising exponentially, if the virus is truly as infectious as they claim?

I should mention, since we are discussing spirituality: the information fed to us shapes our mindset, our mindset dictates our behavior, our behavior creates our destiny, and our destiny is our life. Right now, we are all operating under the perspectives of Beroš and Božinović, shaped by hysterical media coverage, and we act accordingly—which is altering our collective destiny as we plummet toward a massive recession.

The most terrifying figure in the American statistics regarding COVID-19 isn't twenty deaths; it’s the 152,500 unemployed citizens, and the fact that hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people are losing their jobs every single day since this madness began. We are facing a brutal, heavy recession

I suppose the sooner they scrap these ridiculous measures and send people back to work and kids back to their desks, the better it will be for us... We ought to protect the most vulnerable, the elderly and the sick, but by keeping them in quarantine, not by locking down the entire country.

wearyhawk83 said:It's because, based on every single metric we have, COVID-19 is several times more contagious and has about ten times the mortality rate of the flu.

Based on what the WHO statistics have been showing lately regarding seasonal flu deaths, I guess it might be worth considering which specific parameters we should actually be using to measure this. 650.000 People across the globe, yet so far we only have an approximation. 110.000 I suppose one could wonder about the actual number of COVID deaths, though I suspect the truth remains somewhat elusive.

I suppose seasonal flu deaths tend to climb across America every year. It seems like there might be some ocular infection or irritation occurring. I suppose we're looking at a figure around 60,000 people.It seems like they might just end up killing them off, I guess. 500Maybe it's just the inherent frailty of the elderly, I suppose.

As of today, I suppose the number of people suffering from COVID here in America has reached... 1400I suppose some people just died, if that's even the case. 21Perhaps it’s just a matter of Muhammad and those who are elderly or infirm.