Toronto Escorts

Coronavirus: Are You Scared?

Coronavirus: Are You Scared?

  • Yes

    Votes: 109 38.0%
  • No

    Votes: 178 62.0%

  • Total voters
    287

AdamH

Well-known member
Jun 28, 2013
1,884
247
63
Honestly, it's when this starts spreading through the United States that this becomes a major issue.

The almost 10% of people that aren't covered by any sort of health insurance aren't going to be racing to the doctor to get checked out. Nor will they likely be self isolating because sick leave protections down there are a complete joke. You're basically going to have people that are infected (but likely have NO idea) refusing to stop going into work when they're symptomatic, which results in the virus spreading like wildfire.

The economy down there is so fragile that it won't take much before everything comes crashing down.

I'm infinitely more concerned about how all of this will affect the economy, than how my health will be affected.
 

Cantaro

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2016
2,446
1,519
113
They say not to worry but

Coronavirus updates: Stockpile food and meds in case of infection, Canada's health minister says

Health Minister Patty Hajdu is encouraging Canadians to stockpile food and medication in their homes in case they or a loved one falls ill with the novel coronavirus.

Updates below

That’s good advice for any potential crisis from a viral outbreak to power outages, she said Wednesday.

“It’s good to be prepared because things can change quickly,” she said.

She also suggested people should do what they can to ease the burden on the health care system in the meantime by staying home if they’re sick, washing their hands and getting flu shots.

The virus known as COVID-19 is different from influenza and the flu shot doesn’t provide protection against it, but the fewer people who are sick, the less strain on doctors and hospitals.

Follow below for updates


https://nationalpost.com/news/world...id19-covid-19-italy-china-canada-wuhan-deaths
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,093
6,428
113
I got a little miffed earlier today.

I decided to go have have lunch at the Chinese Bao that's opened in my neghbourhood, it was closed. I thought, the hysteria is too much. I went to do my groceries, when I got back to my car it was open. I'd forgotten that, unlike the other eateries on the strip mall, they open at 12:00.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,138
3,573
113
I just copied this off Twitter (cant say how legit it is):

8400 people now being monitored for coronavirus in california: GOVERNOR says.

Also as of today they are monitoring about 600 people in the Boston area for Corona
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
Every now and then nature needs to cull the herd.

There are what, 7.5 billion human beings on the planet. We could loose half of that and only be back to 1970's population. Nature knows that there are simply too many people for it to sustain. Therefore, nature needs to bring the numbers down to more manageable levels.
 

Gibbons#1

Active member
Apr 19, 2013
507
32
28
Every now and then nature needs to cull the herd.

There are what, 7.5 billion human beings on the planet. We could loose half of that and only be back to 1970's population. Nature knows that there are simply too many people for it to sustain. Therefore, nature needs to bring the numbers down to more manageable levels.
Nature or scientists working on a super bug in a lab, who clumsily spilled it over to the public?
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,345
113
Room 112
Every now and then nature needs to cull the herd.

There are what, 7.5 billion human beings on the planet. We could loose half of that and only be back to 1970's population. Nature knows that there are simply too many people for it to sustain. Therefore, nature needs to bring the numbers down to more manageable levels.
What a load of horse manure. Cull the herd - what are we livestock? This planet can easily sustain upwards of 10B people. However, we go into another LIA we'll see more than a few thousand people perish.
 

whitewaterguy

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2005
3,190
21
48
It’s a shame the virus wasn’t engineered To specifically target people wearing MAGA hats. Let a couple of bugs loose at a rally, and allow natural selection to run its course
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,138
3,573
113
It’s a shame the virus wasn’t engineered To specifically target people wearing MAGA hats
It’s a shame the virus wasn’t engineered to specifically target people who can't spell properly
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Every now and then nature needs to cull the herd.

There are what, 7.5 billion human beings on the planet. We could loose half of that and only be back to 1970's population. Nature knows that there are simply too many people for it to sustain. Therefore, nature needs to bring the numbers down to more manageable levels.
Who says the world is overpopulated? And what does that mean anyway? Hunger? Crowding? Environmental harm? For over 200 years we’ve been told that the world is overpopulated. But is it? Check this out.

In 1798, Thomas Malthus thought the world was overpopulated when world population was under one billion. In his book, An Essay on the Principles of Population, he advocated not supporting the poor and controlling the population. He was wrong.

When world population was about 1.3 billion, Charles Darwin, who’s Theory of Evolution was based on Malthus’ book, thought the struggle for survival would cause the extinction of underdeveloped cultures by developed peoples. He was wrong.

Francis Galton, creator of Eugenics, the so-called science of improving the human race, thought the African races were so inferior genetically that Chinese should be settled in Africa to drive the Negro races to extinction and replace them[1]. He was wrong.

Around 1920 when the population was about 1.9 billion, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a prominent eugenicist, believed we needed to get rid of “human weeds,” including dark skinned people from Southern Europe, Africa and India as well as the mentally or physically impaired. She advocated for sterilization, birth control, and abortion. She was wrong.

In the 1930s when world population was about 2 billion, Adolf Hitler believed the world was overpopulated and sought to gain “Lebensraum” (living room) by invading other countries and exterminating “inferior” people, including Jews and Gypsies. By doing so he sought to create a super race of Arian Germans. He was wrong.

In 1966 when the world population was 3.3 billion, to control population, under President Johnson, US AID began requiring population control quotas as a condition for receiving foreign aid. Mass sterilization camps were set up in poor countries using equipment supplied by the UN and US. He was wrong.

Meanwhile, in the 1960s the Green Revolution of higher yield, more disease resistant and more nutritious varieties, increased crop yields by orders of magnitude, making it possible to feed the world without sacrificing forests and other pristine wilderness areas.

When The Population Bomb was published in 1968 by Paul Ehrlich, world population was about 3.7 billion. He believed the world was overpopulated and required drastic action to reduce the population in order to prevent mass starvation and collapse of the society. He was wrong.

In 1972, after nearly 30 years of controlling disease carrying insects, DDT was banned by the EPA in spite of overwhelming evidence refuting claims of harm[2]; the ban was based more on political fears of growing populations in developing countries than on real science or perceived harm. Before the ban DDT eliminated Malaria in the developed world. Developing countries were threatened with loss of foreign aid if they did not discontinue DDT use. Most did, but India did not comply.

Today the world population is about 7.5 billion. USAID, UNFPA, (UN Fund for Population Activities), UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), WHO, World Bank, International Planned Parenthood, Population Council, Marie Stopes and other groups continue the Overpopulation Myth with abortion, sterilization, IUD implantation and birth control activities in poor countries around the world. They are still wrong.

So, is the world overpopulated? Not by any measure. Let’s look at what we mean by overpopulated.

Do we have enough food for everyone? Yes. Thanks to modern agricultural techniques and high yield crops there is more than enough for at least 11 billion people without any increase in acres cultivated. Advancing technology will probably multiply the yield still further as it has in the past. Myths against modern pesticides, herbicides, modern agricultural techniques and biotech crop enhancements (aka GMO) are used to keep poor countries on subsistence agriculture, which results in deforestation to replace depleted fields.

Is the food distributed fairly? No. Other than disasters and wars, hunger has more to do with local politics than with food supplies. Corrupt governments, propped up by government to government foreign aid, which the poor rarely see, are incentivized to help with international population control schemes, but not to build infrastructure, attract investment and help to raise the standard of living of their own rural poor. As long as the people are kept poor, the aid money keeps coming, so corrupt governments have little or no incentive to improve conditions for their people. Foreign aid should be replaced by foreign and domestic investment in infrastructure with accountability.

Is there enough room for all the people? Compared to the land area of the earth, the population is very small. For perspective, if all the people in the world were placed in an area the size of Texas, each person would have almost 93 square meters. A family of four would have 372 square meters. That’s about 4000 square feet, enough for a 2000 square foot house and a yard or garden. This thought experiment puts population in perspective with the size of the earth. No one is suggesting we actually do this, except for the loony left who are grasping at straws to defeat this argument against the overpopulation myth.

Global average population is 55 people per square kilometer of land area, excluding Antarctica. That’s 17.96 acres per family of four. In 2016, over 54% of the population lived in cities, which cover only 2.7% of the land. That means that 46% of the population is rural and lives on 97.3% of the land area. That calculates to 26 people /km2 in rural areas or 38 acres per family of four. Yes, I know that large areas are uninhabitable. Even if we assumed 50% uninhabitable, that’s still a lot of land per person. The fact that only 10% of the land is actually inhabited doesn’t change the picture. There is still a lot of land out there to accommodate and feed a larger population. All this doesn’t even count the 71% of the earth’s surface that is water, which is a food source and a highway between markets.

Is Overpopulation causing Climate Change? No. As a part of the biosphere, even with technology the human race is a small contributor to the total carbon and carbon dioxide gas, and is exceeded by orders of magnitude by land and sea vertebrate animals, and even more extremely by insects and other invertebrates, both in numbers and total mass. One estimate claims there are 300 pounds of insects for every human pound, or 1.4 billion insects per person. With almost 2 million different species described so far and possibly many more un-described, estimates vary widely, even for human populations, especially in poor countries. Corrupt governments may over estimate numbers and under report economic conditions to receive more foreign aid dollars.

Is the environment being harmed by too many people? No. Poverty, including subsistence farming, not population, causes environmental harm and deforestation. Modern agriculture and higher yield crop varieties can end deforestation and provide surplus crops to sell. Roads, electricity, clean water and disease control can provide a healthy workforce and energy to attract investors and run industry. Historically, improved infrastructure and opportunity also stabilize populations and reduce family size. By keeping the poor in poverty, environmentalists actually are doing more harm to the environment. Raising standards of living means people will be able to care for their environment.

Many developed countries have bought into the overpopulation myth to the point that their birth rates are below replacement value. Japan, which reached one of the lowest global birth rates of 1.4 in 2014, has started paying people to have children because of the looming demographic catastrophe of too few people to work and support the elderly who cannot work. Some of the highest density areas of the world are the richest. Look at Shanghai. It is not only the most populated city in the world, 24 million, with an average population density of 2050/km2 (3854/km2 urban) but is one of the most prosperous.

Rural poor areas in developing countries are underpopulated. With diseases from insects and contaminated water taking a high toll and attrition from migration into cities by the young and healthy, there are not enough healthy people to build infrastructure and markets and raise the standard of living of the rural poor. They already have population control by disease and poverty. They certainly don’t need birth control, sterilization and abortion.

Is the planet overpopulated? No. By all measures of overpopulation, the earth is far from capacity to support its people. Since overpopulation advocates have been scaring us for 200 years, why should be believe what they keep saying? Quit worrying about an assumed problem that has yet to materialize. The real problem is with the population control advocates, the abortionists, the sterilizers and the international governmental and nongovernmental organizations that keep paying these organizations for killing off the hope of the future while keeping people in extreme poverty: poor, sick, isolated, ignorant and controlled. Free market solutions are the answer, not money given to prop up corrupt government officials, which the poor rarely see.

The rural poor in developing countries need disease control, electricity and roads to end isolation. They need Employment, Education, Investment, Infrastructure and Disease Control to join the 21st century. It is possible and you can help.

How can you help? Get involved through charities, investments and campaigning against policies that hurt and oppress the poor. Be an advocate for economic development and against population control.
 

ActionJ

Active member
Jan 17, 2004
199
52
28
Nope...not worry except the portfolio taking a bit of a hit. It's fine...I bought more shares. Also, I can get a seat on the subway...just fake cough a little and it's like parting the red sea.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
Honestly, it's when this starts spreading through the United States that this becomes a major issue.

The almost 10% of people that aren't covered by any sort of health insurance aren't going to be racing to the doctor to get checked out. Nor will they likely be self isolating because sick leave protections down there are a complete joke. You're basically going to have people that are infected (but likely have NO idea) refusing to stop going into work when they're symptomatic, which results in the virus spreading like wildfire.

The economy down there is so fragile that it won't take much before everything comes crashing down.

I'm infinitely more concerned about how all of this will affect the economy, than how my health will be affected.
There was an article out showing someone getting a $3200 bill from a hospital for a coronavirus test in the US.
If that's the case they will never have any clue how widespread it is there.
 

AdamH

Well-known member
Jun 28, 2013
1,884
247
63
There was an article out showing someone getting a $3200 bill from a hospital for a coronavirus test in the US.
If that's the case they will never have any clue how widespread it is there.
It's literally already happening. The latest victim of the Corona virus in the United States had no relevant travel history, and no known exposure to other Corona virus patients. So, at the very least, there is 1 person down there who is undiagnosed who is capable of spreading the virus to others. But does anybody really believe that it's just one person? No way in hell. This is just the tip of the iceberg. My guess is there are currently scores of people sick with the Corona virus down there who have no idea, but aren't heading to the doctor, aren't taking time off work, and are likely in the midst of spreading it to others.

Anybody want to place bets on how many "confirmed" cases there will be in the USA by the end of next week? My guess would be between 30 and 50 by the end of the week next week (with the real number being in excess of 150 easily).

Because so many people won't be getting tested or diagnosed, it's going to skew mortality rate statistics to make them look much worse, as only those who are so sick they are dying are guaranteed to seek out medical attention (at which point they'll finally be diatnosed. The vastly exaggerated mortality rate will only serve to further panic the masses and further destabilize the economy.
 

Indiana

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2010
3,621
1,406
113
Nope...not worry except the portfolio taking a bit of a hit. It's fine...I bought more shares. Also, I can get a seat on the subway...just fake cough a little and it's like parting the red sea.
Time to buy soon.
I made a killing in 2008/2009.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,138
3,573
113
2nd positive case in Netherlands
 
Toronto Escorts