Off Topic Coronavirus
- Thread starter Sooperhoop
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
For the umpteenth time in your one man quest to find literally anything this government can do that isn’t a disaster, that was never the criticism. The criticism was that people holidaying on an island with barely any cases were treated the same as those coming back from Spain’s equivalent of Darwen or Leicester. Then they didn’t check people had filled the form in at the airport anyway and just hoped people would abide by the seemingly random quarantine, as exemplified by making it up again with Portugal.
But they were right Watford... remember all of you moaning about not shutting the borders and how it cost lives... you can’t have it the both ways. They got this right however you try to bend it?
Not in such an unnuanced way, no, with our world-beating systems in place. It’s more complex than a yes/no question.
Have a bit of a cough so thought I should get a test booked in just in case.
No home tests available and the nearest test centre available is 47 miles away. The ****’s that about?
No home tests available and the nearest test centre available is 47 miles away. The ****’s that about?
I have zero sympathy with anyone caught abroad on holiday in this way.
Everyone has had ample warning that this could happen wherever you are in the world.
If people are that desperate for their 2 weeks abroad then they should be prepared for the consequences caused by a pandemic.
Agree Col. when I listened to those on holiday moaning and blaming the government I thought they would have been the same lot moaning when we didn’t close the borders? People all knew the risk... I did and had to quarantine twice.
I agree on this Col - here in Germany those coming back either have to have a test or 2 weeks quarantine, but the injustice of this is that they don't have to pay for those tests - the tax payer does.
You may have mentioned this once or twenty times before but it’s really not the point.
Isn't there one at Heathrow, as long as you've had the temerity to travel to a country on the quarantine list
Had a look a bit after and got in at Newbury so not too bad. Was quick in and out as there weren’t many punters. Some decent birds directing the cars.
You were being serious about the cough? Sorry mate I thought you were taking the P.
Well,the "World Bank" has it in it´s program since April 2nd and the Closing date is 31st of March 2025. I have also attached the full document for the Covid-19 believers.
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/993371585947965984/pdf/World-COVID-19-Strategic-Preparedness-and-Response-Project.pdf?fbclid=IwAR34CGdbd7swgu0MmOa1F8h0Z8wnVL4VNUAFyXImHCife1VVe2spWGO7iyM
You must log in or register to see images
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/993371585947965984/pdf/World-COVID-19-Strategic-Preparedness-and-Response-Project.pdf?fbclid=IwAR34CGdbd7swgu0MmOa1F8h0Z8wnVL4VNUAFyXImHCife1VVe2spWGO7iyM
Those are the goals of the official UN Agenda 21/2030.
Shortly after the World Economic Forum launched their 'Great Reset' initiative, a new book titled, 'Covid-19: The Great Reset', authored by senior executives Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret ensued.
There are 5 planks to the Great Reset - economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological - all of which the book covers in detail. But I want to focus largely on the conclusion, as it is here where the author's motivations and rationale for championing a Great Reset, in the wake of Covid-19, become clearer.
Schwab and Malleret characterize the future direction of the world as 'The Post Pandemic Era', a phrase that is repeated ad nauseam throughout. Rather than define it to a particular outcome, the authors opt instead to ask whether this new era will be marked by more or less cooperation between nations. Will countries turn inward resulting in the growth of nationalism and protectionism, or will they sacrifice their own interests for greater interdependence? ...
One thing the authors do write on from a position of clarity is that never can the world return to normal. Or more to the point, be allowed to return to normal. Their view is that before Covid-19 took hold, a 'broken sense of normalcy prevailed'. The situation now is that the virus 'marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.' In a very short space of time it 'magnified the fault lines that beset our economies and societies'.
If it was not already obvious, then the authors confirm over the last few pages of the book that the United Nations' Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development program is intertwined with the Great Reset. This is evident when studying the WEF's Strategic Intelligence unit. Sustainable Development and the Great Reset go hand in hand.
For Agenda 2030 to be implemented successfully, Schwab and Malleret offer an alternative to the possibility of countries failing to come together. As you might expect, it revolves around collaboration and cooperation. In their eyes, no progress can otherwise be made. Covid-19 offers the opportunity to 'embed greater societal equality and sustainability into the recovery'. And, crucially, this would 'accelerate rather than delay progress towards 2030 Sustainable Development Goals'.
But it does not end simply with the full implementation of Agenda 2030. Schwab and Malleret want to go further. Their aim is that the open exposure of weaknesses within existing global infrastructure 'may compel us to act faster by replacing failed institutions, processes, and rules with new ones that are better suited to current and future needs.'
To convey the importance of this statement, the authors state that this alone is 'the essence of the Great Reset'. What they appear to be seeking is global transformation where systems & the age of the algorithm take precedent over political institutions. We are already beginning to see moves by major global institutions like the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organisation and the European Union to 'reform' & 'rejuvenate' both their work & membership. Covid-19 has undoubtedly straightened the hand of global planners and their quest for reformation.
Schwab and Malleret tell us that the worst of the pandemic is yet to come, and from an economic standpoint, I would not doubt them. But let's look at the health aspect for a moment. Global media coverage of Covid-19 has characterized it as a deadly virus that kills with impunity, and without the antidote of a vaccine could devour communities whole.
Perhaps surprisingly, the authors offer up a little fact-based logic. They admit that Covid-19 is 'one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years', and barring something unforeseen 'the consequences of the virus will be mild compared to previous pandemics.' At the time the book was published, 0.006% of the global population were reported to have died from Covid-19. But even this low figure is not altogether accurate.
In the UK for instance the way the death rate has been calculated has meant that people who have been diagnosed with the virus and then succumbed to an accident within 28 days of being tested will have their cause of death marked as Covid-19.
To quote Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University:
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.
Schwab and Malleret could not be clearer when they write that Covid-19 'does not constitute an existential threat or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world's population for decades'. As it stands the Spanish Flu and HIV/AIDS have a larger mortality rate.
...just keep ignoring the transition from free will to tyranny - keep wearing the muzzels.
Shortly after the World Economic Forum launched their 'Great Reset' initiative, a new book titled, 'Covid-19: The Great Reset', authored by senior executives Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret ensued.
There are 5 planks to the Great Reset - economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological - all of which the book covers in detail. But I want to focus largely on the conclusion, as it is here where the author's motivations and rationale for championing a Great Reset, in the wake of Covid-19, become clearer.
Schwab and Malleret characterize the future direction of the world as 'The Post Pandemic Era', a phrase that is repeated ad nauseam throughout. Rather than define it to a particular outcome, the authors opt instead to ask whether this new era will be marked by more or less cooperation between nations. Will countries turn inward resulting in the growth of nationalism and protectionism, or will they sacrifice their own interests for greater interdependence? ...
One thing the authors do write on from a position of clarity is that never can the world return to normal. Or more to the point, be allowed to return to normal. Their view is that before Covid-19 took hold, a 'broken sense of normalcy prevailed'. The situation now is that the virus 'marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.' In a very short space of time it 'magnified the fault lines that beset our economies and societies'.
If it was not already obvious, then the authors confirm over the last few pages of the book that the United Nations' Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development program is intertwined with the Great Reset. This is evident when studying the WEF's Strategic Intelligence unit. Sustainable Development and the Great Reset go hand in hand.
For Agenda 2030 to be implemented successfully, Schwab and Malleret offer an alternative to the possibility of countries failing to come together. As you might expect, it revolves around collaboration and cooperation. In their eyes, no progress can otherwise be made. Covid-19 offers the opportunity to 'embed greater societal equality and sustainability into the recovery'. And, crucially, this would 'accelerate rather than delay progress towards 2030 Sustainable Development Goals'.
But it does not end simply with the full implementation of Agenda 2030. Schwab and Malleret want to go further. Their aim is that the open exposure of weaknesses within existing global infrastructure 'may compel us to act faster by replacing failed institutions, processes, and rules with new ones that are better suited to current and future needs.'
To convey the importance of this statement, the authors state that this alone is 'the essence of the Great Reset'. What they appear to be seeking is global transformation where systems & the age of the algorithm take precedent over political institutions. We are already beginning to see moves by major global institutions like the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organisation and the European Union to 'reform' & 'rejuvenate' both their work & membership. Covid-19 has undoubtedly straightened the hand of global planners and their quest for reformation.
Schwab and Malleret tell us that the worst of the pandemic is yet to come, and from an economic standpoint, I would not doubt them. But let's look at the health aspect for a moment. Global media coverage of Covid-19 has characterized it as a deadly virus that kills with impunity, and without the antidote of a vaccine could devour communities whole.
Perhaps surprisingly, the authors offer up a little fact-based logic. They admit that Covid-19 is 'one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years', and barring something unforeseen 'the consequences of the virus will be mild compared to previous pandemics.' At the time the book was published, 0.006% of the global population were reported to have died from Covid-19. But even this low figure is not altogether accurate.
In the UK for instance the way the death rate has been calculated has meant that people who have been diagnosed with the virus and then succumbed to an accident within 28 days of being tested will have their cause of death marked as Covid-19.
To quote Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University:
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.
Schwab and Malleret could not be clearer when they write that Covid-19 'does not constitute an existential threat or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world's population for decades'. As it stands the Spanish Flu and HIV/AIDS have a larger mortality rate.
...just keep ignoring the transition from free will to tyranny - keep wearing the muzzels.
You must log in or register to see images
Would you please explain "cases". I am just asking this because a person that has been tested "positive" does not mean "infected". We do have to be very precise here.