It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Once Upon on a Time......

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 02:39 PM
link   
in around 1981 there was a very deadly virus which migrated into the United States, and insinuated itself among us. It came from a foreign land, and attacked the immune systems of human beings causing them to die of simple things that previously ordinary antibiotics and treatments would have cured. But this was a vicious virus and the deaths were gut-wrenching, with the patients losing weight to the point they looked like walking skeltons, they vomited almost non- stop, couldn't breath, and it was generally not the peaceful death anyone would hope for. It was horrible, and heartbreaking.

However,scientists soon made a breakthough, and announced to the good citizens of the United States in so many words "hey guys! We don't have a vaccine or an effective treatment for this yet, but we know it's transmitted sexually! So until we do have treatment and vaccines, there IS a way you can protect yourselves from it. You can abstain from sexual intercourse, and if forwhatever reasons you can't make that happen, you can use a condom! Condoms will be very effective in preventing the aggressive spead of this deadly virus."

And the good people of the United States listened, and adhered to the suggestion, and modifed their behaviors. And guess what? It worked. Spreading started slowing down, and slowing down, and eventually there were effective treatments for it. Everybody learned a great lesson from this, and although it was never erradicated, the spread slowed, and the people who acquired it, could survive.

Note that Ronald Reagan was President of the U.S. in 1981:

" In dealing with AIDS, Reagan did what he so often did well—he appointed people who shared his political convictions but could be relied on to make sound decisions based on apolitical facts and solid science. These appointees framed and announced such decisions in ways that would not result in politically polarizing efforts—in this case, efforts to fight a disease that disproportionately afflicted the gay community." Source: www.city-journal.org... He also made sure his emissaries thoughtfully spread this message.

In 2020, another horrible, lethal disease reached the shores of the United States. It too, is a highly contagious, horrific disease, which is particularly lethal in certain age groups, and in persons who have other preexisting illnesses/conditions. It can also kill people in younger age groups as well, by causing a thickening of the blood, which can result in deadly or debilitating stroke, and also in children who can develop other conditions if they should get the virus.

Again, scientists all around the globe immediately got to work on it. They essentially said "hey guys! We don't have a vaccine or an effective treatment yet, but we do know it's typically transmitted through the respiratory system, and coming into close contact with other people who have been exposed to it, or who have it. But until we do have a vaccine and effective treatment, there is a way you can protect yourselves and others from it. You can wear masks, and you can keep a safe distance from other people when you are in public. If you are in one of the high risk categories -- stay home."

This time, however, many people shunned this advice from the experts. Some people even advocate that wearing a mask can actually kill you. (Did condoms kill anyone in 1980, or did they save lives? Is there a comoparison here?) Some people believe those who wear masks are 'sissies', for example - real men don't wear masks. Or this virus is a hoax, or a flu, and other's follow along with political trends, making wearing masks a 'libtard' kind of thing. You know --weak democrats wear masks. Brave republicans do not.

Wearing masks has become a political football, which is disturbing and stupid on so many levels... I just can't... But I wonder why that is? Wonder why using condoms in the 1980's didn't become a political issue. Was it because our then President, Reagan, endorsed the use of them? It made sense, and people were sensible. The President was sensible. What's changed, I wonder. Why have so many rejected solid advice from our doctors and researchers? What's changed? Why do some reject common sense, and sensible suggestions made from global experts on pandemics?
edit on 6/25/2020 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

In 1981 (or thereabouts) it was: “Just say ‘no’ to drugs, say ‘yes’ to butt secks“.

In 2020 it is: “Just say ‘no’ to mask, say ‘yes’ to opioids”.

That’s it in nutshell.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I noticed how the OP conveniently skipped over the SARS issue and Obama didn't declare an emergency for several months.

(shrug)



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Oh, were we supposed to wear condoms, I guess I missed that part. Not many people wore condoms back in the eighties or even nineties around here.

They told us not to wear masks at first, during that time I really felt foolish if I wore a mask at the store because we were told not to.

Yes, wearing a mask can worsen the disease if you have it, that has been known for a long time. As the viruses are breathed out the infection gets slower, breathing them back in actually increases the speed of infection because your immune system does not get as much time to figure out how to fight the virus because it is coming back in and infecting more cells. That is why they told us initially not to wear masks and why they are telling us to take them off as soon as you do leave the store or function, people with any viral infection probably should not be wearing masks too long, they should stay home and we should be helping these people by shopping for them.

We should take care of those with high risk instead of shutting down the whole country, the whole response to this virus was terrible, with the Liberals exceeding the conservatives in stupidity....remember, liberals do not like to follow rules, more liberals I do know did not like wearing masks it is the attitude of the person, not their specific political orientation that is the problem. Many of the protestors and rioters do not wear masks yet they identify as liberals.

The evidence and way to address things from the experts is all over the place, our governor chose the idealogy of the experts she chose to match the way she believes. She was irrational and still is. She shunned the directions of the CDC and made her own agenda, trying to gain votes by politicalizing the fear while calling the people who did not agree with her crazy tactics as using politics. The Republicans were trying to keep Michigan from going down the tube financially, she really hurt the state's pocket book a lot. She overdid it so she could be on the TV many times a week, she is more of an attention hound than Trump...yes it is possible that someone can be worse than Trump.

In the grocery stores around here, most people are still wearing masks, same with the department stores. We have a lot of people with common sense left up here and also some who are severely fear mongered.

Like I said, more of the more liberal people around here don't wear masks than the conservatives. Look around... the people who do not like to follow the rules and laws are actually liberal, true conservatives follow directions. If you go far right, which there are only a small percention of the right in that group, they do not follow rules either, but often will comply just because they hang around with conservatives.

As far as being republican or democrat voters, I know a lot of people around this area and I would say that more people who gain from Democrats giving away money to people in this area...Democrat backers...are not wearing masks. Remember, some of the older people at the stores have a hard time breathing through masks, same with some people who work with dust all day, they have masks on all day. Those people can't wear a mask because they cannot breath well, but it does not matter what political side they are on. That is in this area, I do not know how it is in your area.

Take an honest look at people you know who do not wear masks, conservatives usually follow a law or rule, but will stretch it, liberals do not usually think that rules apply to them. It has been that way since the sixties, and I was a liberal hanging around with liberals for thirty years...I will admit my attitude was a little screwed up.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Aids highly contagious....

Amazing aids has been around for decades yet the avg person still thinks a hug will give u aids

the only garenteed way to get aids is a needle full of contaminated blood

Every other way tops out at around 20%



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten
I noticed how the OP conveniently skipped over the SARS issue and Obama didn't declare an emergency for several months.

(shrug)


Although a horrid disease, I don't think SARS took off here the way Covid has --

From the CDC:

"During November 2002--July 2003, a total of 8,098 probable SARS cases were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) from 29 countries, including 29 cases from the United States; 774 SARS-related deaths (case-fatality rate: 9.6%) were reported, none of which occurred in the United States (6). Eight U.S. cases had serologic evidence of SARS-CoV infection; these eight cases have been described previously (7--10). A total of 156 reported U.S. SARS cases from the 2003 epidemic remain under investigation, with 137 (88%) cases classified according to previous surveillance criteria as suspect SARS and 19 (12%) classified as probable SARS. Because convalescent serum specimens have not been obtained from the 19 probable and 137 suspect cases that remain under investigation, whether these persons had SARS-CoV disease is unknown." www.cdc.gov...

Although when Ebola hit the country, Obama did not have a Surgeon General, because Mr. Mcconnell refused to let him get one approved. Obama did however, appoint an "Ebola Czar", and things were rather quickly gotten under control.
edit on 6/25/2020 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
Aids highly contagious....

Amazing aids has been around for decades yet the avg person still thinks a hug will give u aids

the only garenteed way to get aids is a needle full of contaminated blood

Every other way tops out at around 20%


Yes, people in opposition to the evidence at that time, initially blamed the disease on "drug addicts", which of course, was a part of the spread. Drug clinics made needles available for free, to stop dirty needle contamination, which also helped, and even the addicts adhered to the recommendations.








edit on 6/25/2020 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Stay safe, and God Bless.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: markovian
Aids highly contagious....

Amazing aids has been around for decades yet the avg person still thinks a hug will give u aids

the only garenteed way to get aids is a needle full of contaminated blood

Every other way tops out at around 20%


Yes, people in opposition to the evidence at that time, initially blamed the disease on "drug addicts", which of course, that was a part of it. Reagan put that to rest, as the primary concern was sexual transmission.









What dose that have to do with how contagious aids is



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

How very goady. But let's cut to the chase, because you obviously do know what the issues and problems are, but choose to mock and belittle rather than honestly address these problems.


Some people even advocate that wearing a mask can actually kill you.


Advocate? That's an odd word for stating the truth.

The facts and history tell us that masks can kill, both seemingly healthy people in certain conditions and circumstances, and people with chronic lung conditions and other health issues.

They have rights to protect their health too... and no one has the right to jeopardize another person's health for their own. Especially when there is no reason to believe the other person is even infected, much less infectious.


(Did condoms kill anyone in 1980, or did they save lives? Is there a comoparison here?)


Hmmm... let's compare... is there any health risk/physical harm caused by wearing condoms? NO. Is there any health risk/physical harm caused by wearing face masks? YES.


Why have so many rejected solid advice from our doctors and researchers?


Good question to ask yourself about why you reject the solid advice from doctors and researchers that folks with chronic lung issues and other health conditions should not wear masks. And why you think it is appropriate or proper for you to force your will on others to protect you, rather than taking appropriate and proper precautions for yourself.

I pity everyone who is so darn afraid of catching this virus and believes they can actually avoid the inevitable... and I'm thoroughly and completely disgusted that they think it's okay to force their will on others in their futility. We were never going to stop the spread, and we were never intending to stop the spread. It was always to slow the spread.

And we can do so through completely voluntary means and methods. No need for mini-tyrants dictating to the people around them.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Condoms? ..Meh..

Masks?..Bleh..

Live ugly, Fake your death.. The way of the possum.




posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

All one big mudpit. No wonder ATS is on lifesupport.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


ANY Virus Does Not Negate My Constitutional Rights to Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness . Going by that Assumption , ANY *Restrictions on American Citizens going about their Daily Lives is ILLEGAL Unless Backed by a Law Passed by Congress . Last time I Checked , Mandatory Mask Wearing is NOT a Law as of Now . Therefore , I Respectfully REFUSE to Comply .



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The virus that causes AIDS was developed before the early 80's. The first report I read about it was in summer 78 or 79. That particular newspaper (Detroit News or Free Press) article said it was a bio weapon developed by the US military. Other less reliable sources claim that it was in the works decades before that. We've had bio-weapons since at least the dark ages, during the black death plague (as primitive as that application was back then).



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

So, opposing mitigation strategies, do you support herd immunity?

I was looking before I posted to see how Sweden is doing with that. It has seven times the death rate of Finland, however their attitude is 'so we lose a lot of old and sick people'. The value of human life does not appear to be at the center of their actions, which surprises me somewhat.

But no, Boadicea, if I had some sort of disease that a mask could make worse, than I certainly wouldn't wear one, and you certainly expect personal responsibility in this event, and maybe the person should stay home. But isn't it likely that most healthy people do not need to have such a concern? I don't think I would be pissed off at others for wearing them.

If rebreathing exhaled air is the fear, there is not any scientific evidence to support that masks cause carbon dioxide intoxication. You can also wear those masks with the little breathing valve (which I use because it prevents glasses from fogging).

Yes, of course. Mitigation is intended to slow the spread, as you say. The rationalization is that it will give researchers time to come up with a treatment and perhaps a vaccine, and also to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed. Makes sense to me.
edit on 6/25/2020 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Boadicea

So, opposing mitigation strategies, do you support herd immunity?

I was looking before I posted to see how Sweden is doing with that. It has seven times the death rate of Finland, however their attitude is 'so we lose a lot of old and sick people'. The value of human life does not appear to be at the center of their actions, which surprises me somewhat.

But no, Boadicea, if I had some sort of disease that a mask could make worse, than I certainly wouldn't wear one, and you certainly expect personal responsibility in this event, and maybe the person should stay home. But isn't it likely that most healthy people do not need to have such a concern? I don't think I would be pissed off at others for wearing them.

If rebreathing exhaled air is the fear, there is not any scientific evidence to support that masks cause carbon dioxide intoxication. You can also wear those masks with the little breathing valve (which I use because it prevents glasses from fogging).


Learn the subject matter of masks first , before you post .



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Actually I did look around, but all I could find was information debunking current rumors.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

" We've had bio-weapons since at least the dark ages, during the black death plague (as primitive as that application was back then). "

Yep. The CIA and FBI loaded up those fleas with Bubonic Plague, and put them on rats to infect and kill the population. of peasants and landowners. Both!
On wait! There was no CIA or FBI in the 1346. The U.S. was still a feudal system.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Boadicea

So, opposing mitigation strategies, do you support herd immunity?


I support natural immunity. I support nutritional supplements and other natural remedies/support to prep the body to fight and survive the virus. I support public information and education on effectively treating symptoms at home to prevent ever needing hospitalization. I support recommendations for voluntary actions that can be taken to slow the spread. I even support incentives for people voluntarily taking precautions. I support taking extra precautions for the at-risk, such as designated shopping hours/days. I support online orders for delivery or curbside pickup. I support anyone who can working from home and being encouraged to work from home. I support letting adults asses their risks, and to take appropriate precautions for their needs and circumstances. And so on and so forth...


I was looking before I posted to see how Sweden is doing with that. It has seven times the death rate of Finland, however their attitude is 'so we lose a lot of old and sick people'. The value of human life does not appear to be at the center of their actions, which surprises me somewhat.


You seem to be presuming that our efforts were meant to reduce number of deaths, as opposed to spreading those deaths out over a longer time in order not to overwhelm hospitals. The nursing home fiascos probably killed more people unnecessarily that any lives that will ultimately be saved. Not to mention the forced invasive intubation and ventilation. We have learned much in the process, and it's quite probable that information can be used to save lives, or at least avoid the worst symptoms and complications.


But no, Boadicea, if I had some sort of disease that a mask could make worse, than I certainly wouldn't wear one...


Then you should likewise understand why others may not wear one...


...and you certainly expect personal responsibility in this event, and maybe the person should stay home.


Exactly as I'm doing, and plenty of other people. We haven't been given much choice, have we? We're not symptomatic, most likely not infectious, but we are effectively on house arrest because we cannot wear masks, but we cannot go out without a mask because we might be infected and might be contagious and it might infect someone else. It wouldn't be that difficult to designate specific hours for mask-only shopping, banking, post office, etc. It would certainly be more practical for most people.


But isn't it likely that most healthy people do not need to have such a concern? I don't think I would be pissed off at others for wearing them.


I don't see anyone angry at people wearing masks. This OP wasn't about people getting angry at others wearing masks. The only animosity I've seen is from those who demand everyone wear a mask.


If rebreathing exhaled air is the fear, there is not any scientific evidence to support that masks cause carbon dioxide intoxication.


Yes, there is.


You can also wear those masks with the little breathing valve (which I use because it prevents glasses from fogging).


Or I can not put myself through the risk and misery at all and find alternate ways to do what I need to do, and just not do lots of things I would have done. Which may save me a few pretty pennies.


Yes, of course. Mitigation is intended to slow the spread, as you say. The rationalization is that it will give researchers time to come up with a treatment and perhaps a vaccine, and also to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed. Makes sense to me.


And people have a right to make their own choices for their own needs and circumstances, including the risk of getting sick with CoVid, getting through it, and getting natural immunity.



posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Obama called it a health emergency at the very beginning when we only had 20 cases and no deaths WHY DO YOU LEAVE THIS OUT???????

www.politifact.com...



Obama had his acting director of health and human services declared H1N1 a public health emergency on April 26, 2009
That was when only 20 cases of H1N1 — and no deaths — around the country had been confirmed.

The Obama administration declared swine flu, or H1N1, a public health emergency six weeks BEFORE H1N1 was declared a pandemic.

No H1N1 deaths had yet been recorded in the United States.

Six months after that initial declaration, when more than 1,000 deaths had occurred, Obama himself declared H1N1 a national emergency.

See the sources for this fact-check
President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus is being defended with an attack on how President Barack Obama handled the outbreak of H1N1, also known as swine flu, in 2009.

The headline of an article shared on Facebook made this claim:

"Flashback: Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

The article was published on Prntly, which describes itself as a conservative news website that defends Trump. The article goes on to say that "it wasn’t until six months after" H1N1 became a global pandemic that "then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S."

Not only is this timeline wrong, but the story and headline eliminate important facts and distort others, imparting a false narrative that social media users are resharing.


edit on 25-6-2020 by research100 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join