Well, instead of handing them out, just have them on a clipboard and tick the boxes yourself while keeping the required distance.
Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?
- Thread starter wanderingthomas
- Start date
Well, instead of handing them out, just have them on a clipboard and tick the boxes yourself while keeping the required distance.
Christine
The Living Force
This one also quotes articles from fr-sott.fr and my links on his page
There are 67.7 k subscribers
karo
Jedi
Maybe adding a question about vaccine solution could be okay also? I know there is question "- What do you think is the best way of protecting yourself from the virus?" but maybe more specific question about this particular solution would be good - at least in those countries where in media they talk about it as a solution to overcome plandemic. So the question could be:
Would you go for a vaccine when it is available? If yes why would you do that, if no why not?
Now, I think, the phone numbers are available for pollsters when you sign for some programs like discount cards in stores. You give your data and by that you agreeing to further use of it by third parties.
anka
The Living Force
This is statistically speaking not representative. Every survey needs more data to get close to reality of the sample. I thought about a few hundreds otherwise we end up getting results from a certain bubble that will always show a lot of distortion. Within a small sample, people from capital city will likely answer differently than people from countryside, people on the street differently from those online, people in supermarket differently from those in the park etc. - unless there are a lot of respondents. I would definitely go online and aim for a bigger audience or else we would need to spend a lot of time calling or walking on the street.
karo
Jedi
I didn't get a thought to that, I'm sorry. Maybe only explanation on the NO part.
Once the final version is released I can coordinate the translation stuff. Besides, if it should be become a huger project, maybe splitting the topic a bit would be wise, especially if an online version is another option.
karo
Jedi
In case of translations, I'm initially translating MI version of questions to polish, so it may be handy later?
Of course. The plan is to have a translation table available that is accessible for everyone and you can then copy and paste your translation into it.
Many people (self included) will not answer a call from an unknown caller.
Persephone
Jedi Master
Thanks Christine for this video! Nothing that we don't know yet but for French people is a useful video to share (lot of French people don't read/listen to English articles/video, even if I try to put a translation or summary in French when I post English articles).
As you say it has a big audience and indicates that even in France some truths begin to leak
I agree with you if the purpose of the bioweapon is to kill a lot of people. I've seen several posts in this thread saying that it isn't a good bioweapon because it has a low mortality rate. FWIW it occurred to me (or maybe I read it somewhere) that a pathogen that if highly contagious, makes people very sick but also has a low mortality rate could be "useful" as well, depending on the goals of the creators of the bioweapon.
For instance if a military wanted to invade a country without killing everyone, if they released such a virus covertly, and their soldiers were all vaccinated against the bioweapon, then the people on the country would all get sick and they could waltz right in with very little resistance.
I'm not saying that this is what's going on with the coronavirus, but I don't think we can rule out the bioweapon hypothesis just because something has a low mortality rate.
Phlebas
Padawan Learner
For my daily exercise I cycle into the City of London and pass through a couple of parks that are full of other people "exercising" I am willing to ask them some questions from an "safe" distance. The fact they are outside might suggest they are in the less fearful camp but I will save judgment on that until I have attempted to talk to some of them.
Persephone
Jedi Master
Slight politics changement in France about the epidemic:
"BACKPEDAL. Coronavirus: government catching up conceptually but not operationally. The press conference by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health set the tone: the executive has finally abandoned undifferentiated containment. The government has just realized that the results are no different from other countries that are less or not confined.
www.atlantico.fr
Here some excerpts/summary:
Finally they're doing a U-turn. The executive has abandoned undifferentiated containment; they are moving towards selective containment, quarantining the carriers of the virus, differentiating according to geography, and everything will be done at the local level. For six weeks now, French people have all been in confinement regardless of their region, their status with regard to the virus, their fragility. The government has just realized that the results are no different from other countries that are less or not confined.
Of course at the beginning a total lockdown was necessary and has been effective in reducing the virus spread, but now...
Conceptually, the recognition that undifferentiated containment is generally ineffective and even harmful to those in non-epidemic areas is an important step that calls for further steps in understanding the epidemic over the long term. Indeed, we will have to live with the epidemic while waiting for treatment. And so we will have to monitor possible resurgent outbreaks and contain them not by a new generalised containment but by targeted measures and act quickly.
Selective confinement of vulnerable people is also on the agenda.
Differentiation is essential to be effective. The fantasized egalitarianism of situations as individuals is a tenacious but dangerous myth. Fragile people should not be forbidden to go out for a walk in a park (it is curious that they are closed (???)), in the street, in a garden, but they should avoid going to places where interpersonal distance is impossible to respect, i.e. all shops and closed places, and tomorrow public transport. For this it is urgent to bring them their groceries in the emergency and then have them delivered. This can take a long time, which is why this organization is useful to set up. It is not a question of discrimination (the catch-all word of those who see the epidemic through their ideological lens) but of targeted measures whose effectiveness can be measured.
Confinement in its French form in the sense of the extreme limitation of people movement is not the decisive factor in the weakening of the transmission. The stopping of travel from high-activity foci to the rest of France certainly is, because the epidemic was initially very heterogeneous in nature.
Can state afford it?
The material is available, it has to be produced or bought. Given the experience accumulated in Europe the answer is quite easy to set up but as since January the question is the speed of public action. This is why it is necessary to liberate the economic actors of the supply chain rather than wanting to make an all state affair. On the other hand, the impetus can come from the executive, particularly in a compromise of national interest with our companies to produce tests. The offer must be as diversified as possible in order to succeed quickly. The first line is that of general practitioners, liberal nurses and medical analysis laboratories. Let them buy the equipment they need and test the population. Every time pre-emptions have been practised they have aggravated the shortage.
The Executive agreed that the response to the epidemic must be locally and adapted. Targeted, differentiated and therefore tailor-made logistical measures. This organization is the responsibility of local government administrations. We have immense resources, but they are at a standstill outside the front office of the fire brigade, police and hospitals. The other resource are the companies that have not been included in this logistics, which is regrettable. It is necessary to reopen all the companies that can do it and to encourage them to organize themselves to do so (thus the businesses). The administration must simply check that simple, cardinal measures, in limited number, have been taken by the company, the administration or the trader. Making the workplace, business or shop the safest place to do business is an achievable short-term goal that can make a major contribution to targeted control of the epidemic. This is not the case after six weeks of containment.
The executive appeared more pragmatic yesterday at a press conference, at least much more so than the president who set a very distant and imprecise course (perhaps to bring it closer after a reassessment of the situation in the meantime?). No longer talking about undifferentiated confinement, about overnight deconfinement, but going into the details of our lives in the pandemic by insisting on the responsibility of each and every one of us is a giant step forward. It remains for this government to get results. And there is still a great deal of uncertainty.
"BACKPEDAL. Coronavirus: government catching up conceptually but not operationally. The press conference by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health set the tone: the executive has finally abandoned undifferentiated containment. The government has just realized that the results are no different from other countries that are less or not confined.
Coronavirus : le gouvernement rattrape son retard conceptuel
L'exécutif a enfin abandonné le confinement indifférencié. Le gouvernement vient de réaliser que les résultats ne sont pas différents d’autres pays moins ou pas confinés.
www.atlantico.fr
Finally they're doing a U-turn. The executive has abandoned undifferentiated containment; they are moving towards selective containment, quarantining the carriers of the virus, differentiating according to geography, and everything will be done at the local level. For six weeks now, French people have all been in confinement regardless of their region, their status with regard to the virus, their fragility. The government has just realized that the results are no different from other countries that are less or not confined.
Of course at the beginning a total lockdown was necessary and has been effective in reducing the virus spread, but now...
Conceptually, the recognition that undifferentiated containment is generally ineffective and even harmful to those in non-epidemic areas is an important step that calls for further steps in understanding the epidemic over the long term. Indeed, we will have to live with the epidemic while waiting for treatment. And so we will have to monitor possible resurgent outbreaks and contain them not by a new generalised containment but by targeted measures and act quickly.
Selective confinement of vulnerable people is also on the agenda.
Differentiation is essential to be effective. The fantasized egalitarianism of situations as individuals is a tenacious but dangerous myth. Fragile people should not be forbidden to go out for a walk in a park (it is curious that they are closed (???)), in the street, in a garden, but they should avoid going to places where interpersonal distance is impossible to respect, i.e. all shops and closed places, and tomorrow public transport. For this it is urgent to bring them their groceries in the emergency and then have them delivered. This can take a long time, which is why this organization is useful to set up. It is not a question of discrimination (the catch-all word of those who see the epidemic through their ideological lens) but of targeted measures whose effectiveness can be measured.
Confinement in its French form in the sense of the extreme limitation of people movement is not the decisive factor in the weakening of the transmission. The stopping of travel from high-activity foci to the rest of France certainly is, because the epidemic was initially very heterogeneous in nature.
Can state afford it?
The material is available, it has to be produced or bought. Given the experience accumulated in Europe the answer is quite easy to set up but as since January the question is the speed of public action. This is why it is necessary to liberate the economic actors of the supply chain rather than wanting to make an all state affair. On the other hand, the impetus can come from the executive, particularly in a compromise of national interest with our companies to produce tests. The offer must be as diversified as possible in order to succeed quickly. The first line is that of general practitioners, liberal nurses and medical analysis laboratories. Let them buy the equipment they need and test the population. Every time pre-emptions have been practised they have aggravated the shortage.
The Executive agreed that the response to the epidemic must be locally and adapted. Targeted, differentiated and therefore tailor-made logistical measures. This organization is the responsibility of local government administrations. We have immense resources, but they are at a standstill outside the front office of the fire brigade, police and hospitals. The other resource are the companies that have not been included in this logistics, which is regrettable. It is necessary to reopen all the companies that can do it and to encourage them to organize themselves to do so (thus the businesses). The administration must simply check that simple, cardinal measures, in limited number, have been taken by the company, the administration or the trader. Making the workplace, business or shop the safest place to do business is an achievable short-term goal that can make a major contribution to targeted control of the epidemic. This is not the case after six weeks of containment.
The executive appeared more pragmatic yesterday at a press conference, at least much more so than the president who set a very distant and imprecise course (perhaps to bring it closer after a reassessment of the situation in the meantime?). No longer talking about undifferentiated confinement, about overnight deconfinement, but going into the details of our lives in the pandemic by insisting on the responsibility of each and every one of us is a giant step forward. It remains for this government to get results. And there is still a great deal of uncertainty.
Just jumping in here with an interesting piece of information, that has been discussed here (and see Gaby's article on SOTT as well) and now made it into German mainstream media.
On the mainstream portal n-tv, which belongs to the RTL Group, they currently carry a piece about French scientists assuming nicotine might actually help against COVID-19 and planning tests about that:
Aside from that, thank you everyone for your contributions in this monstrous thread! I have followed your contributions over the weeks and they provided guiding posts (no pun intended!) especially in how to deal with people in my environment who are being "sold" to this huge scam and to keep myself under control (in the sense of "Sit back and enjoy the show") - which not always went well. But this is a matter of practice though.
Things in Eastern Germany, my neck of the woods, have been going more or less the same as in so many parts of the world, and it also differs from state to state inside - with Saxony being more restrictive (similar to Bavaria) than Thuringia. Will write more about the conditions in another post.
On the mainstream portal n-tv, which belongs to the RTL Group, they currently carry a piece about French scientists assuming nicotine might actually help against COVID-19 and planning tests about that:
Aside from that, thank you everyone for your contributions in this monstrous thread! I have followed your contributions over the weeks and they provided guiding posts (no pun intended!) especially in how to deal with people in my environment who are being "sold" to this huge scam and to keep myself under control (in the sense of "Sit back and enjoy the show") - which not always went well. But this is a matter of practice though.
Things in Eastern Germany, my neck of the woods, have been going more or less the same as in so many parts of the world, and it also differs from state to state inside - with Saxony being more restrictive (similar to Bavaria) than Thuringia. Will write more about the conditions in another post.