Coronavirus Craziness

[commonsense]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU&t=1117s

“Donald Trump calls it the “Chinese virus” – to widespread fury. China has expelled prominent American journalists and launched a disinformation campaign that accuses the American army of starting it. Taiwan has accused the World Health Organisation of ignoring its warnings in January about human-to-human transmission because of Chinese pressure.

“Is China to blame?

“There are two charges against the Chinese government over the coronavirus pandemic to be considered. The first is that it allowed risky “wet markets” to continue operating despite the warning of the SARS epidemic in 2003. The second is that it tried to suppress news about the new coronavirus and deny the evidence of human-to-human transmission until late in January, even silencing a whistleblower-doctor who later died.

“There is currently a huge propaganda pushback being organised by the Chinese state on both issues and it is having an effect. Those who raise the matter of Chinese government responsibility are quickly accused of racism. This is deflection. Nobody is accusing ordinary Chinese people of anything. The charge is that the government acted in a way that allowed the pandemic to start and to worsen.

“Yet already the media, fearful of being called racist, seems to have begun self-censoring. The news site Vox recently carried a video. The title was abruptly changed without explanation from “Why New Diseases Keep Appearing In China,” to “How Wildlife Trade Is Linked To Coronavirus.” CNN carried a long article that said “Scientists are still unsure where the virus originated,” before admitting several paragraphs later that the “likely epicentre” lies in “the so-called wet-markets of Wuhan, China — where wild animals are held captive together and sold as delicacies or pets, a terrifying mix of viruses and species can occur.”

“This is something almost everybody agrees on. The earliest cases of the disease occurred very close to one of these markets in Wuhan. Here all sorts of exotic wildlife was on sale, alive, for eating and for use in Traditional Chinese Medicine. The strong belief that an animal is better for you or tastes better if you see it killed animates these markets.

“It was the use of palm civets in medicine that almost certainly led to the SARS epidemic in 2002-3 and it may have been the same with pangolins in today’s epidemic. Civets were bred for sale in markets, and those in the market in Fushan, where the epidemic started, proved to be heavily infected with SARS, whereas those on civet farms were clear. So the infection jumped species in the market. The natural host turned out to be bats. Indeed a whole raft of human diseases have come from bats, most of them recently: rabies, ebola, Hendra, nipah, MERS as well as SARS.

“‘The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb,’ wrote four Hong Kong scientists in 2007 – 13 years ago. Their warning was ignored.

“A book published in 2016 stated that: “Bats are not specifically protected in China and many species are eaten, especially in southern China, where bats are found regularly in markets…Requests from international agencies following the SARS outbreak, (which resulted in several hundred human deaths) that wildlife legislation be introduced in China prohibiting inter alia hunting and sale of bats have been ignored.” That has now belatedly changed, with China temporarily banning wildlife markets. But they did that after SARS, too, and then reopened them.

“Much of the demand for wildlife products is medicinal or at least tonic: the products are sold as good for health, or sexual potency, on the basis of zero evidence. The Chinese government has even encouraged the use of Traditional Chinese Medicine, despite the health risks and the impact on rare wildlife. In 2019, the state-run China Daily news quoted Xi Jinping himself as saying that “traditional medicine is a treasure of Chinese civilisation, embodying the wisdom of the nation and its people”.

“To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating wild animals. Many people eat pigeons, deer and cod safely. What is dangerous is selling live wild animals in markets where infections can pass on easily or mix with those from other species.

“In a convenient distraction from the wet-market theory, some western environmentalists are currently trying to pin the blame for this pandemic on the destruction of the natural environment, supposedly resulting in people coming into contact with wildlife such as bats for the first time. This idea, which has been doing the rounds for a couple of decades, is barking mad as an argument for three reasons.

“First, human beings were in far closer contact with wildlife in the natural state in the past, when they routinely hunted animals for food in the forest, than they are now.

“Second, SARS and COVID-19 came from urban markets and one of them originated in a farmed animal – the palm civet. Neither virus was encountered in a wilderness. The practice of wildlife farming of many exotic species is peculiar to China.

“Third, there is no evidence of bat populations being under stress from climate change or habitat destruction at the present time, let alone any respectable theory about how stress would lead bats to give their diseases to people more readily. Indeed, China is one of the countries that is rapidly reforesting, rather than deforesting, making more habitat for bats. Bats are full of respiratory viruses because, like us, they gather in large crowds, at roosts, not because they are scarce. It is our modern urban living that has made us vulnerable, not our encroachment on nature.

“What about the other argument, that the Chinese government covered up evidence of human-to-human transmission till well into January? The World Health Organisation, which has been accused of being very much in thrall to the Chinese government before, tweeted on 14 January: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.” Ouch. Already then there was a month’s worth of evidence of cases of human transmission.

“A week later WHO’s secretary general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was briefed on the situation and announced sycophantically that: “I was very impressed by the detail and depth of China’s presentation. I also appreciate the cooperation of China’s Minister of Health, who I have spoken with directly during the last few days and weeks. His leadership and the intervention of President Xi and Premier Li have been invaluable, and all the measures they have taken to respond to the outbreak.”

“Taiwan was already warning the World Health Organisation by this stage that something frightening was happening in China, but its warnings were ignored. Taiwan is excluded from the WHO at China’s behest.

“On 30 December, Dr Li Wenliang sent a message to fellow doctors warning them of the threat of catching the new virus. He was reprimanded for “spreading false rumours” and police forced him to sign a statement that he had “seriously disrupted social order” and breached the law. Dr Li died of coronavirus in February.

“Elsewhere in the world on 4 February, the mayor of Florence urged people to hug any Chinese people as a gesture of support against the virus.''

Thanks for giving us the link. Do you know who YouTube used for their source?

You obviously didn't watch the video, because it has nothing to do with the article.

This is exactly what I mean. If something is true then what difference does it make who's delivering the message, or on what forum?
You are 'checking' to see if it fits with your political agenda.
Fuck people. I don't know why I bother. They really do deserve everything they get.

I didn’t view the video. Since you didn’t provide any other link, I made the assumption that the narrative also came from YouTube. Where did you get it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Thanks for giving us the link. Do you know who YouTube used for their source?

You obviously didn't watch the video, because it has nothing to do with the article.

This is exactly what I mean. If something is true then what difference does it make who's delivering the message, or on what forum?
You are 'checking' to see if it fits with your political agenda.
Fuck people. I don't know why I bother. They really do deserve everything they get.

I didn’t view the video. Since you didn’t provide any other link, I made the assumption that the narrative also came from YouTube. Where did you get it?

Then you shouldn't assume things. Watch the video.
And why? Is there some part of the article that is wrong? What difference does it make? It's just a site where writers can post articles as far as I can tell.

[commonsense]

You obviously didn't watch the video, because it has nothing to do with the article.

This is exactly what I mean. If something is true then what difference does it make who's delivering the message, or on what forum?
You are 'checking' to see if it fits with your political agenda.
Fuck people. I don't know why I bother. They really do deserve everything they get.

I didn’t view the video. Since you didn’t provide any other link, I made the assumption that the narrative also came from YouTube. Where did you get it?

Then you shouldn't assume things. Watch the video.
And why? Is there some part of the article that is wrong? What difference does it make? It's just a site where writers can post articles as far as I can tell.

Should I believe a schizophrenic just because he writes an article?

[attofishpi]

The PC are such monumental racists. They actually believe that 'white' people are the default humans, which is why they never screech 'racism' when something negative involves people from a 'white' country. It's only 'racism' when it involves those they consider inferior to themselves--non white humans.
The PC are a sociopathic disgrace and blight on humanity.

Spot on.

We used to call each other cheeky monkeys all the time - kids. Nowadays, you gotta be real careful because if you call a 'black' kid a monkey - some twat is gonna call you a racist!

Well, who is the moron that made the connection? extremely ironic that.

One day at work I was referring to a work colleague (a good friend of mine) and called him a WOG (as we did in good jest). (he was Greek descent - in UK WOG refers to Indians - in Australia its Greek\Italians) Somebody overhearing the conversation said -hey you shouldn't call him a WOG. So I said, hang on - you call me a POM all the time so don't start that crap - he soon shut up.
Apparently because he knows I am proud to be English - it is ok to call me a POM. But because he thinks someone being Greek cannot be proud of being Greek - WOG isn't allowed.
As far as I know WOG is a term of endearment - Western Oriented Gentleman - from the early days of trade with India, where the local Indians started to dress in Western attire.

And what about calling someone a Paki because they are from Pakistan!!? - All we are doing is shortening the word Pakistani!!!!!!

RIDICULOUS.

You should watch the new film The Gentlemen - there is a scene that sums this shit up very well.

[Dubious]

Sculptor has me 'blacklisted' because he can't face the truth about himself and his ilk.
The PC never have an argument, which is why they are always throwing around the 'R', 'B', and 'X' words. It's all they have. Losers.

I'm wondering if he still believes Mozart was a chintzy composer!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I didn’t view the video. Since you didn’t provide any other link, I made the assumption that the narrative also came from YouTube. Where did you get it?

Then you shouldn't assume things. Watch the video.
And why? Is there some part of the article that is wrong? What difference does it make? It's just a site where writers can post articles as far as I can tell.

Should I believe a schizophrenic just because he writes an article?

Yes. If the article is true. What is true doesn't change depending on who its author is.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

We used to call each other cheeky monkeys all the time - kids. Nowadays, you gotta be real careful because if you call a 'black' kid a monkey - some twat is gonna call you a racist!

Well, who is the moron that made the connection? extremely ironic that.

The morons who made the assumption are the Politically Correct. It's just their usual moronic, disingenuous projection. Many humans look like chimps, (particularly old white men, I've noticed) and many look like gorillas, although when you look objectively at gorillas they are far more handsome and magnificent than any human.
HUMANS look like primates because we ARE primates.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sculptor has me 'blacklisted' because he can't face the truth about himself and his ilk.
The PC never have an argument, which is why they are always throwing around the 'R', 'B', and 'X' words. It's all they have. Losers.

I'm wondering if he still believes Mozart was a chintzy composer!

Indeed. I'm working my way through a Mozart sonata during lockdown, and Mozart is every bit as difficult and complex as Beethoven--possibly even more so because it's so deceptive and so many people just don't 'get' him. I find it fascinating that Glenn Gould didn't have a clue how to play Mozart.

[Dubious]

Sculptor has me 'blacklisted' because he can't face the truth about himself and his ilk.
The PC never have an argument, which is why they are always throwing around the 'R', 'B', and 'X' words. It's all they have. Losers.

I'm wondering if he still believes Mozart was a chintzy composer!

Indeed. I'm working my way through a Mozart sonata during lockdown, and Mozart is every bit as difficult and complex as Beethoven--possibly even more so because it's so deceptive and so many people just don't 'get' him. I find it fascinating that Glenn Gould didn't have a clue how to play Mozart.

It was Arthur Schnabel, who said, referring to the sonatas "Mozart is too easy for children, but too difficult for professionals."

Quote from Quora...

The sonatas are full of “musical puzzles.” The writing is quite exposed; every turn of phrase and change of harmony is laid bare to the ear, relatively free of filigree or ambiance to hide behind. This is a core feature of the high Classical style, of which Mozart was the quintessential master.

As for Glenn Gould what he couldn't understand he simply denigrated, not only true in performance but also in speech. He's more famous for idiosyncrasy, glibness and using his mouth as a loud metronome than for than for any great performance except possibly the Goldberg variations which usually gets priority over anything else he recorded.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm wondering if he still believes Mozart was a chintzy composer!

Indeed. I'm working my way through a Mozart sonata during lockdown, and Mozart is every bit as difficult and complex as Beethoven--possibly even more so because it's so deceptive and so many people just don't 'get' him. I find it fascinating that Glenn Gould didn't have a clue how to play Mozart.

It was Arthur Schnabel, who said, referring to the sonatas "Mozart is too easy for children, but too difficult for professionals."

Quote from Quora...

The sonatas are full of “musical puzzles.” The writing is quite exposed; every turn of phrase and change of harmony is laid bare to the ear, relatively free of filigree or ambiance to hide behind. This is a core feature of the high Classical style, of which Mozart was the quintessential master.

As for Glenn Gould what he couldn't understand he simply denigrated, not only true in performance but also in speech. He's more famous for idiosyncrasy, glibness and using his mouth as a loud metronome than for than for any great performance except possibly the Goldberg variations which usually gets priority over anything else he recorded.

Here's what Alfred Brendel had to say in an interview about that quote and he's absolutely correct. With Mozart more than, I think, any other composer apart from Bach, every single note has an important story to tell. You can't really get away with with wrong notes or poorly played notes in the same way that you can with other composers.

''F.C.:In some of your writing about Mozart you quote Arthur Schnabel, who said, "Mozart is too easy for children, but too difficult for professionals." What did he mean when he said that about Mozart?

A.B.: In Mozart's keyboard works everything is exposed. There are relatively few notes and each of them counts. Not only that you find the right key, but that you give each key the right nuance, the right inflection. If you are not careful you fall into a trap. This is also why these pieces are relatively rarely performed. I think that most players shy away from them. They either don't see the complications and think the pieces are too easy, or they do see the complications and find them too difficult. I decided that I should tackle these sonatas because it will be too late if I don't do it soon. ''

Love your 'mouth as a loud metronome' analogy. I never thought of it like that

[commonsense]

Then you shouldn't assume things. Watch the video.
And why? Is there some part of the article that is wrong? What difference does it make? It's just a site where writers can post articles as far as I can tell.

Should I believe a schizophrenic just because he writes an article?

Yes. If the article is true. What is true doesn't change depending on who its author is.

How do you know if it’s true?

[commonsense]

Just because evidence is 'circumstantial' doesn't make it wrong, or any less compelling.

Circumstantial evidence is less credible than physical evidence.

In this case it's the only possible 'kind' of evidence because obviously no one physically witnessed the actual transference of the virus from one species to another.

Just because the only available evidence is circumstantial, that doesn’t make it more compelling.

There is plenty of 'physical' evidence too--like hundreds of thousands of dead people. Is that the only part you read?
And it doesn't need to be 'more compelling'. What kind of 'physical evidence' would you find 'more compelling' in this case?

Was it intentional or not that you utilized deceptive hyperbole to make your point? At the moment I am writing this there are not hundreds of thousands of dead people lying around. Only 52,000 globally.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Circumstantial evidence is less credible than physical evidence.





Just because the only available evidence is circumstantial, that doesn’t make it more compelling.

There is plenty of 'physical' evidence too--like hundreds of thousands of dead people. Is that the only part you read?
And it doesn't need to be 'more compelling'. What kind of 'physical evidence' would you find 'more compelling' in this case?

Was it intentional or not that you utilized deceptive hyperbole to make your point? At the moment I am writing this there are not hundreds of thousands of dead people lying around. Only 52,000 globally.

I read the 'infected' part, which is over a million now. No doubt at the rate it's going it won't be long before it's over 100k.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Should I believe a schizophrenic just because he writes an article?

Yes. If the article is true. What is true doesn't change depending on who its author is.

How do you know if it’s true?

Which part of it are you disputing, and why?

[commonsense]

Yes. If the article is true. What is true doesn't change depending on who its author is.

How do you know if it’s true?

Which part of it are you disputing, and why?

I don’t dispute any of it. I just don’t know if it’s true.