Reply To: SARS cov2 and Covid 19

Home Forums Discussion Forum SARS cov2 and Covid 19 Reply To: SARS cov2 and Covid 19


The naming stuff is marketing. It’s the same as for airports.

SARS-CoV2 [1] is a virus of the same type as the viruses that cause the common cold (namely it is a coronavirus [2], a subtype of that type being SARS), but the symptoms (if a person gets any symptoms at all) are often more severe than for the common cold (as they are for influenza [3], another group of viruses that cause respiratory symptoms that can be severe and can be fatal); and many SARS-CoV2 infectees especially if they are elderly and already have a chronic illness – such as a long-term respiratory illness – are at risk if hospitalised of catching pneumonia (in hospital) and then snuffing it, and indeed they are at risk of snuffing it even if they don’t catch pneumonia in hospital, or if they don’t go to hospital – all of which also apply to flu. So all in all it seems quite flu-typy even if the mortality rate is higher.

Meanwhile the Coronavirus Act means that no hospital looks like it will be successfully sued for causing the death of a Covid-19 certificated patient by improper use of a ventilator and in any case the requirements for cremation paperwork have been relaxed. So of course we’ve all got to clap “the NHS” and “nurses” which really means the medical priesthood, the government, and the state. (Nurses who blow the whistle aren’t getting much of a hearing.) Never underestimate the hypocrisy of the ruling class.

Most scientists don’t have a clue what’s going on, and those that do have a bit of a clue won’t be talking in public. Those who think they know what’s going on will be kept away from the very centre by dint of being village idiots. (It’s very easy for a person who plays a Knower role to an appreciative workplace audience or to some other lower-status audience to get the idea that they know stuff that they don’t. This is the reason why some independently-minded aristocrats even if impoverished prefer to socialise with independently-minded proletarians than with managerial or professional types.) The first big question is this: what amount of biological warfare [4] is there in various aspects of this epidemic? [5]. There is no reason to believe that those who are concerned with national strategy at the helm of the state are able to answer that question with much precision. That said, the answer is obviously not zero.

1) Is “SARS-CoV2” WHO-decided, i.e. a Big Pharma-decided, name?
2) My guess is that most people don’t know that the scientific priesthood uses the word “coronavirus” for the viruses that cause the common cold as well as for SARS, and that having had their minds softened up by the media many would think that anybody who told them this fact was probably a nutter.
3) Many believe that when they have a fairly heavy cold that disappears within a day or two, or maybe three, that they actually have “flu”, when usually they haven’t, because flu usually knocks a person out for longer and with a bigger hammer.
4) A pandemic is a type of epidemic, so I am using the word “epidemic” correctly even if many have been encouraged to use a word that is new for them, namely “pandemic”. Getting people to use a word that is new for them is a known propaganda technique that encourages them to think they are in a “community” that is “with the programme”.
5) This is why I keep on about the disparity between Britain and Russia for case fatality ratios. Obviously testing policy, type of test, the criteria for deciding whether or not to slap a Covid-19 diagnosis on a patient who is in this or that health or demographic category, and policies regarding sanitising hospitals all have an effect on the CFR (as doubtless does climate), but I suggest that when Britain has a CFR that is 16 times higher than Russia’s there are almost certainly other major human-caused factors.