272 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Ed McGuinness: Getting... · 0 replies · +1 points

Much of this would be nice to have, but what all of this requires is confidence. Confidence that people will not get (very) sick or die, or that they become contagious. There is also the fear of confinement for a couple of weeks and for those who have no other source of incone than their business or casual work that is a powerful deterrent to stay healthy or at least, avoid testing.

Macrosceptic and associates in various disciplines do not believe that there are easy solutions. The various measures taken and available to contain/suppress the epidemic are probably too costly in terms of conventional health economics. However, the political cost of "avoidable" deaths is considerable and it will take time before the public has gets used to the idea that there is another hazard in their lives.

One serious problem is that the current experiments with serum-derived antibody treatments (antibodies extracted from the blood of recovered COVID - 19 patients) appear to be disappointing. Some effect as a prophylactic but very little on patients who are seriopusly ill. By the time the various vaccines have passed their stage III tests (earl;y next year, we may have something that by then has proven to protect for any 3-4 months. So even the advent of vaccination possibilities will not immediately lead to a return of consumer confidence, if the PR around those vaccines is factual. Making that PR too optimistic runs the risk that a disappointment (no effect after six months, which is quite plausible with new vaccines (agent, adjuvans and dosis) for instance) will hurt confidence more than a positive result would help.

The main push behind a vaccine is of course the US election campaign where an impopular president is fighting for his life and does so with the tools he is accustomed to. A new president might well try to be more factually correct and close to what experts judge to be the best course of action. All in all there is little that explains current stock prices and a lot that supports lack of confidence. But of course, the markets are always right...

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Free speech for Wiley? · 1 reply · +1 points

Why is it always about artists (one may disagree) who say things that their audience does not mind: anti-Israel (not necessarily anti semitic, plenty of Jews who disagree with current policy there) anti racial minorities, or anti-anti racism, etc. Let those people do their tyhing you will not have to listen and if their fans are threat to a portion of society, listening to a rapper does not make to much of a difference. I was brought up with very specific ideas about right and wrong allegedly derived from Faith (or vice versa). It has taken a while but gradually one starts to disagree with 1940/50 morality and one does not feel bad about it. It is the same with politicised morality. A choice, not "nature".

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The people in whose na... · 0 replies · +1 points

You meant "net" contributor. Ireland has been a recipient for a very long time.

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The people in whose na... · 1 reply · +1 points

That is a matter of convenience. Ireland is not a NATO member but secvure in the knowledge that the UK is a US client state.

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The people in whose na... · 0 replies · +1 points

You may want to learn more about Poland. Medieval Poland/Lithuania was a very large area under a feudal system with a very weak "government" The nobility tended to elect kings who were harmless to them and as the monarchical system became dominant all over Europe, that nobility was happy to join the Austrian, Prussian and Russian systems. Everyone of importance spoke French anyway.

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The people in whose na... · 0 replies · +1 points

Haha, excellent!

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The people in whose na... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not as easy as you may think..

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The people in whose na... · 0 replies · +1 points

Democracy in the West started wherever there was universal suffrage: no exceptions for gender or race. That gives a variety of dates for different countries and even within countries (one could agrue that US democracy was flawed when forms of segregation still existed). Certanly there was no democracy in any country where/while women were excluded. That means that our Western experience with democracy is barely a century old and in many European countries very much shorter eg those occupied by Germany or in alliance with it during WWII, or the authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe before WWII, or the communist regimes between 1945 and 1989. A country like Poland and Hungary has not had a truly democratic experience (plenty oof passionate natiuonalism though) before 1989 and even now, democracy is contested in those countries. A fiercely democratic country like Estonia does not alow a third of its population to vote because they are Russian speakers. Very often there are practical arguments in favour of curtailing democracy. I am personally very fond of Lee Kuan Yew's. But democracy, as a minimum, should present government rotation between at least two established parties and ensure that that contest remains feasible. Lots of seemingly "democratic" regimes fail that test but to call them authoritarian or autocratic will often provoke angry reactions from the locals. For some the US is the gold standard of democracy despite its long established party duopoly. But it does have excellent instirutions that make life difficult for the occasional wannabe autocrat. The Philippines is often regarded (within the area studies community as having -in theory- the most democratic regime in East Asia. But it endures a overtly authoritarian like Duterte (and one of Duterte's predecessors was a certain Marcos).

Writing about liberal democracy is pretty pointless as long as we mix quality of government, representation and robust checks and balances with moralism, wherther that is nationalist, religious or authoritarian.

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Sarah Ingham: How so m... · 0 replies · +1 points

This lady is clearly interested in having an answer to her question. She could have asked an expert but apparently did not. Instead she wrote a stupid and tendentious article that might lead to het real question, why did we take any measures? Well, if that was her question, why roll out the yoga lady? And why publish this drivel here?

1 week ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Neil Shastri-Hurst: Tr... · 2 replies · +1 points

Trump (I doubt that WHO bashing is unrelated to the need to find convenient and beatble adversaries in order to please his fans) may not quite understand the consequences of what he is doing. Of courtse that applies in a general way but here the problem is serious. We all accepot that he has a stand up comedian's approach to politics and if you like the type of entertainment you may even like the man, in the knowledge that he is surrounded by more capable people who keep him from making too much of a mess. But the WHO is of global importance. It may be poorly managed, subject to a variety of political influences (as it should with so many stakeholders) but the reality is that world wide vaccination and eradication programs need a multilateral approach. Making the WHO function better is a worthy goal, abolishing it is criminal madness.