A lot of people are still confused about the difference between Sars-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the disease), and why it matters.
Several have suggested it's just semantics. I don't think it is and I will try to explain why. (thread)
H1N1 is a respiratory virus. If you contract that virus, you will likely have mild symptoms. We refer to this as a COLD.
In rarer cases, H1N1 can lead to a more severe collection of symptoms, characterising a disease we call INFLUENZA.
SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus. If you contract that virus, you will likely have mild symptoms. We refer to this as a COLD.
In rarer cases, SARS-CoV-2 can lead to a more severe collection of symptoms, characterising a disease we call COVID-19.
Conflating the virus and the disease is like calling all colds influenza. This is not a problem of semantics, it is a public health issue. By referring to the virus and the disease interchangeably, we end up with headlines like this:
COVID-19: 'The worst illness I've ever had', says medical expert
A further 68,000 cases of COVID reported in ONE DAY
It is obvious to me that this can lead to unnecessary panic and convince people to accept disproportionate and dangerous measures in order to mitigate the spread of the virus.
In my view, SAGE and the gov. are aware of this. Hence the common use of the meaningless term, 'COVID'.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is an extraordinary clip of Morgan admitting to being both incredibly thick and morally repugnant but trying to blame those attributes on other people getting things wrong.
Every single thing he says about what we knew then vs what we know now is total nonsense.
Kisin has so many opportunities to jump in & say, "Well, no, that's not true is it. And even if it were, the things you said remain inexcusable. There are no circumstances where these ideas are ok."
But he just nods along & says he sympathises with this evil sack of horse manure.
"Hang on though Piers, the manufacturers of these vaccines made it clear from the outset that they hadn't tested for effects of transmission. That was always just a baseless assumption used to coerce people into undergoing an experimental medical procedure."
But he told Boris Johnson that he absolutely HAD to impose a second lockdown because 'Covid' was going to kill at least half a million people in a 'second wave'.
The way they are trying to paint almost everyone except Hancock as vaguely sensible and conscientious is one of the most obvious deceptions thus far.
But most people seem to be falling for it.
Hancock is a disgusting criminal who should face justice. But he's also a weak, gullible halfwit. Does he really strike you as the kind of commanding, revered character who would be allowed to wrestle control away from people like Whitty, Vallance and Johnson?
It's laughable.
No. We don't 'get' why all these people behaved the way they did. And here's why:
Because even if EVERYTHING they were told had actually been true, the ideas they pushed and the way they treated others would have remained completely deranged and evil.
If you're told there's a deadly virus spreading & we MUST do something about it.
Then you're told it's not dangerous for children.
Then you hear that what we're going to do about it is torture, injure & kill children, & you're ok with that, it's not an understandable position.
"Oh hey man, I'd have been ok with that too if I believed what they were telling me. Let's go for a beer."
No. This is reckless & irresponsible. If we don't acknowledge the level of inexcusable moral depravity that facilitated all of this, humanity's future is very bleak indeed.
In order to go along with all of this and push it on others, you didn't simply have to BELIEVE everything you were being told. You could have believed it all and still should have understood that it was ethically vile.
Supporting it all meant you were and are an immoral person.
And when you suddenly realise, far too late, that the obvious bullshit you were reading was not in fact true, you don't suddenly transform into a person who understands fundamental ethics. You remain dangerously depraved.
Because of this, yes - we can forgive you, yes - we’re glad you want to help us now, but no you can’t have a leadership role from now on. You remain a huge risk. Sit at the back and stay quiet.