Coronavirus - the new strain

[TheDecameron]

I see the gutter press are loving this with their prediction of pandemic driven massed painful deaths and the likes. If their gullible readers follow the usual path we can look forward to lots of Brexiteers topping themselves before the virus “gets them”.

Ask not for whom Big Ben bongs, it bongs for thee.

 

[Roger Adams]

READ THE WARNING ON THE LABEL FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

 

[russel]

It would be most excellent for the planet if all human life was wiped out......I look forward to the day.

How will you celebrate?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

What we need is a virus which limits human fertility.

 

[sean99]

What we need is a virus which limits human fertility.

Or selectively kills psychopaths.

 

[gassor]

Here we go; "Boots stores in Edinburgh have ‘completely run out’ of face masks in the wake of fears coronavirus may have reached the UK.

Three patients were being tested for the deadly virus, which has put the Chinese city of Wuhan on lockdown, in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh.

Pharmacists in the Capital have reportedly been inundated with requests for face masks - despite warnings from an academic that they are not effective."

 

[gavreid]

What we need is a virus which limits human fertility.

That's a very right wing argument for you if I may say so - the number of children falls markedly as poverty decreases.

 

[Bob McC]

Here we go; "Boots stores in Edinburgh have ‘completely run out’ of face masks in the wake of fears coronavirus may have reached the UK.

Three patients were being tested for the deadly virus, which has put the Chinese city of Wuhan on lockdown, in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh.

Pharmacists in the Capital have reportedly been inundated with requests for face masks - despite warnings from an academic that they are not effective."

other academic studies would disagree

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190903134732.htm

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

That's a very right wing argument for you if I may say so - the number of children falls markedly as poverty decreases.

Not sure I see it in those terms. So long as human procreation exceeds the number needed for steady state (around 2.2 for western-style economies, IIRC) then the population seems likely to continue to grow. We ideally need the global human population to decrease, quite markedly, quite quickly. One way would be war. Another would be pandemic, but a better, gentler way, would be for every couple to only have, on average, one child, for a generation or two. We know that overt population control (cf the Chinese one child policy) won't work, because people; so I was just wishing for an external force to bring something similar about.

 

[gavreid]

Not sure I see it in those terms. So long as human procreation exceeds the number needed for steady state (around 2.2 for western-style economies, IIRC) then the population seems likely to continue to grow. We ideally need the global human population to decrease, quite markedly, quite quickly. One way would be war. Another would be pandemic, but a better, gentler way, would be for every couple to only have, on average, one child, for a generation or two. We know that overt population control (cf the Chinese one child policy) won't work, because people; so I was just wishing for an external force to bring something similar about.

The rate of growth has fallen dramatically over the past 50 years and is expected to fall over the next 50. People are hungry because they can't afford to pay the price demanded by the food producers (the biggest capitalist enterprise on the planet). People die largely because they are malnourished and/or can't afford the price of medicines. There's a lot of celebrities falling into this trap at the moment just now, Attenborough, Packham to name two...

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Not really sure I follow your point, nor indeed that it follows mine.

 

[gavreid]

Not really sure I follow your point, nor indeed that it follows mine.

We don't need population control we need to change the way food, medicines and wealth are made available.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. There are few things wrong with the current state of this planet and the human condition that there being rather fewer of us wouldn't fix.

 

[gavreid]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. There are few things wrong with the current state of this planet and the human condition that there being rather fewer of us wouldn't fix.

As I said it's a very right wing argument - it comes down to poor people can die because their lives are less valuable than ours

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

With respect, bollocks. You’re just picking a fight and I’m not giving you one. I didn’t say anything about the virus only affecting poor people, nor did I say I wanted the virus to kill people. For reasons perhaps only known to yourself, you’re projecting something on to what I said.

 

[gavreid]

With respect, bollocks. You’re just picking a fight and I’m not giving you one. I didn’t say anything about the virus only affecting poor people, nor did I say I wanted the virus to kill people. For reasons perhaps only known to yourself, you’re projecting something on to what I said.

Because you argued that the world's problems are caused by overpopulation when in reality there is far more than enough to go around - I was surprised at you, hence my comment.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I consider the argument that the planet can sustainably support a global population of 10 billion as misguided, and the associated argument that it will stabilise at that level are somewhat speculative.

 

[Rodrat]

The risk would appear to be low according to health professionals. On the upside If it isn’t, the elderly and infirm are likely to peg it which reduces the drain on the NHS and provides funeral cost bunce and probate instructions for lawyers.

 

[wacko]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. There are few things wrong with the current state of this planet and the human condition that there being rather fewer of us wouldn't fix.

I agree with you.

 

[wacko]

Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I consider the argument that the planet can sustainably support a global population of 10 billion as misguided, and the associated argument that it will stabilise at that level are somewhat speculative.

I agree with you. Twice.