The following is a short discussion with President of the Barbados Association of Medical Practitioners (BAMP) Dr. Linda Williams (Epidemiologist). Dr. Natasha Sobers ( Epidemiologist) from the UWI, Cave Hill and Senior Economic Advisor to the government Dr. Kevin Greenidge – Head of the CBC TV 8 Sanka Price lead the discussion supported by Head of News at Voice of Barbados Stetson Babb.
Discussion re COVID 19 and the Economy
265 responses to “Discussion re COVID 19 and the Economy”
-
We should follow science only so far
There is great irony that during this Season of Emancipation, when we celebrate black Barbadians gaining freedom and the rights to their own bodies, the Government of Barbados and the private sector are considering ways to legally take away a level of Barbadians’ right to decide what they do with their own body and force or coerce persons into taking COVID-9 shots.
It is in some ways an understandable response to a very difficult situation. The rationale is that it is for the good of the entire country. However, the latest reported science suggests that this is flawed thinking.
We were being told that fully jabbed persons were less likely to pass on the virus than the unjabbed. On Friday the United States Centres for Disease Control and major news media began reporting from a newly released study that persons who have had the jab are just as likely to infect others as persons who haven’t had it. The unjabbed are no more a threat to others than the jabbed.
“The bottom line was that, in contrast to the other variants, vaccinated people, even if they didn’t get sick, got infected and shed virus at similar levels as unvaccinated people who got infected,” This was the opinion given to CNN by a Dr Walter Orenstein, who heads the Emory Vaccine Centre. He was referring to the Delta variant which, despite being more infectious, does not appear to be more aggressive than other strains.
This jabs a hole in the argument that forcing workers to take the shot makes the work environment safer.
However, many persons have chosen to do so for their own safety. This is a reasonable and understandable choice and it is their right. Many people are more hesitant and this is also reasonable and understandable, and also their right.
With this novel coronavirus, what we are constantly finding out is how little we really know. There are also emerging concerns that COVID-19 jabs could stimulate the evolution of more resistant strains. Which leads me to a very personal story about my child, a doctor, fear, intimidation, bacteria, the republic and freedom of choice.
Stuck shut with mucus
When my first child was born, one of her eyes was stuck shut with mucus. Apparently, this is not uncommon. I happened to overhear the attending doctor say to the midwife in charge that she was going to put some antibiotics in the eye. Now, I ain’t no doctor.
But that did not sound right.
Me and my fast self turned immediately to get the doctor’s attention.
“Is that necessary?” I asked.
The doctor looked a bit taken aback, and responded, “Well, she may go blind.” I had to take a moment to breathe and catch myself so that I could respond calmly. Tactics of fear or intimidation are too often the reflex response of persons in positions of authority and power to achieve compliance.
“Is that a possibility or a probability?” I asked. She paused again and she seemed to take a moment to think about her response this time.
This time she was a little
less assertive. “A possibility” she replied. “Is it a highly likely possibility that she will go blind or not highly likely?”
I asked. “Not highly likely,” she admitted. “Well, no thank you then; we won’t use the antibiotics.” That was our choice.
Breast milk
After some research, my daughter’s mother washed the child’s eyes with breast milk. The eye cleared up one time. Human breast milk has strong antibacterial properties and unlike most antibiotics is totally non-toxic.
It is highly recommended in situations like this one. There is usually more than one way despite the fact that persons in authority may try to make you believe that their way is the only way.
Though not a medical practitioner, I knew enough to know that much of the bacteria that a baby is exposed to at birth is necessary to help its immune system to develop. I knew that manmade antibiotics can offset the natural bacterial balance that is necessary for health.
Also, I knew that the overuse of antibiotics has led to bacteria evolving into deadlier strains which are resistant to antibiotics. I knew enough to make my own decision.
We are told to follow the science. But science is always winding with many roads, sharp bends, dead ends and U-turns. We should follow the science only so far as we can stay on the path of sound reason, respect for rights and moral democratic principles. Coercing a person to undertake a medical procedure against their will is not something to be taken lightly in a modern society, whether we agree with the procedure or not.Adrian Green is a communications specialist. Email Adriangreen14@gmail.com.
-
Let’s get it right
I won’t sugar-coat things: Employers have made several legal missteps since the pandemic began, though some were due to the unique challenges presented by it.
In March 2020, many employers told their employees to use their vacation days during the lockdown in order to be paid.
Senator Franklyn then stated publicly that the Holidays with Pay Act required employees to be given 14 days’ notice of vacation. Those employers were left to correct their mistake.
Similarly, many were placed on layoff and short time without employers carrying out the consultations either with the employees or the Chief Labour Officer as required by section 38 of the Employment Rights Act,
which I mentioned in one of my previous articles. Again these employers had to correct their error.
Some employers decreased their workers’ wages without their consent. The Barbados Workers’ Union and some people, including me, publicly decried the practice as a breach of contract and unlawful.
In some instances, the intervention of the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister was necessary to resolve the unlawful wage reductions.
In short, some employers have acted before inquiring into the lawfulness of their actions, which is not good practice.
This is why I agree with the decision of the Social Partnership to allow the Attorney General to obtain a legal opinion on the legal implications of mandatory vaccinations or PCR testing before any national policy is established and before individual companies seek to impose their own policies.
Vaccine requirements
It was also requested that the business sector refrain from implementing PCR or vaccine requirements for their employees during the interim.
I hope the policies which have been circulated by Tides Restaurant, Lionel C.
Hill Supermarket and BGI Cargo regarding mandatory vaccinations and/or PCR testing are placed on hold in line with the decision of the Social Partnership. If not, we should hesitate to patronise businesses that engage in unlawful practices with their employees.
Is the consideration of a mandatory vaccination policy premature at this stage?
Is there really widespread vaccine hesitance or is this being confused with Sinopharm hesitance? The long lines and fully booked appointments which occurred for the AstraZeneca vaccine suggest the hesitance is not widespread. I suspect there will be an increase in vaccine uptake once other brands become available.
What’s the rush by employers to implement mandatory vaccine or PCR testing when the safety protocols continue to provide a safe place of work for their employees? None of these employers have required their customers, suppliers or tourists to be vaccinated or produce negative PCR tests in order to enter their establishments, so why is it required
for their employees?
If these employers feel that the safety protocols are sufficient to protect their staff from unvaccinated suppliers and customers, then it is disingenuous to suggest that the safety protocols, which to date have helped most businesses not experience even one case of coronavirus, are somehow now insufficient.
Mandatory vaccine policy
Is it also premature for the Government to be considering a mandatory vaccine policy when there are insufficient vaccines on island?
If comments on the social media pages of our news houses are any indication (and I think they are), many are becoming reluctant to take the vaccine because of this apparent push to make them mandatory. The mandatory vaccine talks are proving counterproductive and increasing the very vaccine hesitance they seek to remedy.
Coercion is not the way.
I have reviewed the WHO policy brief entitled Covid 19 and Mandatory Vaccinations: Ethical Considerations And Caveats dated April 13, 2021. The policy discourages the use of coercion and says: “If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.”
It also asserts that mandatory policies may “undermine confidence and public trust, and might affect both vaccine uptake and adherence to other important public health measures, which can have an enduring effect”.
I intend to discuss this policy in detail in next week’s article. The present administration has repeatedly emphasised that it takes guidance from the WHO in its response to COVID-19. I hope they will give the caveats in the WHO policy due consideration.
Michelle M. Russell is an attorney at law with a passion for employment law and labour matters and is a budding social activist.Source: Nation
-
Silly season on republic, vaccines
By Ezra Alleyne
We have indeed reached the silly season.
I mean that in the most serious manner. It is to be observed in the way in which some people are handling the two issues of the day – the republic issue and the other issue of mandatory vaccination.
I challenge anyone to show me a policy statement of the present Government which says that the Government is going to introduce mandatory vaccination. I pause while, as readers, you search your minds.
Unless people misunderstand what has been said, the majority will agree with me. Yet the call-in programmes have been assaulted by callers holding forth on the air as though such a policy has been enacted. Not true.
Democracy in action
As I understand it, the Social Partnership met specifically to discuss the issue. This is and was democracy in action, with the Prime Minister in the role of arbitrator and protector of the public interest. What was the outcome of that meeting?
Having heard the views of both camps – the employees and the employers – the decision was taken to seek the legal opinion of the Attorney General on the contentious issues of vaccines and testing.
The position of the private sector was that mandatory vaccination and testing were necessary. The unions’ position was that Barbadians should be sensitised on the science and encouraged to take the vaccine, but of their own volition.
It is consistent with good governance to act in the manner that the Prime Minister has. It is also good governance to ask for opinions in double quick time since the vital interests of the society are involved.
I need only remind all of the Prime Minister’s words: “We would love to reach consensus . . . . This Government has always held the perspective that we consult, communicate, but where we can’t, we will not fail to govern.”
Republic issue
Now to other issues. The Reverend Guy Hewitt scrambles to criticise the Prime Minister for what he says is her change of position on the issue of a referendum before going to a republic.
Hewitt is contesting the leadership of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and is putting before us as best he can his ideas on some broad issues. He can make these statements because he understands the power of leadership.
Political leaders stamp their decisions on the Government. And subject to discussion within Cabinet when collective responsibility kicks in, most decisions in Government are those of the Prime Minister to the extent that she carries her Government with her. It is the inherent power of the Westminster system.
To properly appreciate its essence would have allowed Hewitt to avoid falling into the error of quoting a statement in 2007 when Miss Mottley was Deputy Prime Minister in an Owen Arthur administration.
Hewitt asks what has changed since 2007. Well, three Governments have. Namely, Owen Arthur to David Thompson in 2008; Thompson to Freundel Stuart, 2010 to 2013; Stuart in his own right, 2013 to 2018; and now Mottley from Stuart, 2018 to the present.
Westminster system
Too many people do not understand the Westminster system of governance. Errol Barrow and Sir James Tudor did. And so do I. Barrow underlined the nature of his leadership. He once declared that if he had a problem with any minister, he would ask the minister to go and read the Constitution and then come back to him.
Sir James wondered in print how other leaders before Sandiford could govern so easily. But Sandiford could only move forward by hotly contested inches.
The DLP since Barrow has had a difficulty recognising, as Sandiford said in his book and in Parliament, that the Prime Minister is no longer primus inter pares (first among equals). He is it!
That means that Prime Minister Mottley can reshape in 2021 the earlier policy of an Owen Arthur administration on referendum, which she was bound to support then as a Cabinet minister.
She is it now!
I say no more at this stage, but we have to understand what we are doing. At least Hewitt did not make the mistake of calling for a Budget at this time. To that extent, he scored one on DLP leader Verla De Peiza while losing once again to Mottley.
Little wonder then that another seasoned commentator in another section of the press does not see any change of administration next time around.
Ezra Alleyne is an attorney and a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.
Source: Nation -
@ David,
Here is the latest covid-19 news coming out from the UK. -
Did Ezra in his long-winded diatribe wrote a commentary outlining why barbadians should not challenge PM Mottley dictates
For what it is worth in a democracy the Prime Minister is subjected to scrutiny
Many are beginning to see that her actions does not match her words and rightfully makes effort to challenge and hold her accountable in view if full transparency
Her seeming role of governance is to hide behind Committes leaving all important decisions for them to decide
It is about time on important decisions when time is of essence and the economy weakens and buckles under the weight of COVID that she plays a pivotal role in decision making with out introducing added fusion which can stall the economy further as with the hot debate of mandatory vaccination
Her flipping approach of asking the People to wait until a decision is meted out by the AG is indeed a stalled front which can develop and roll across the nation to make matters worse and more challenging between employer and employee as the weeks go by
Leaders are expected to lead by example
Xxxxx
The Republic issue as all can gather Mia wasted no time in pursuing a path for conclusion
Albeit that We the people had no say so Yea or Nay leaving all decision making into her own hands
Dictator or the loose needless to say
A very important subject which needed the voice of the people to be heard was giving a high five by some unknown voices unknown to many in the population and the rest will become history -
Do you understand the meaning of diatribe?
-
EA is already here and he did not mention Margaret Thatcher.
Read it twice.
He obfuscates the mandatory vaccination discussion. Got lost with his own eloquence but recovers and states “We would love to reach consensus . . . . This Government has always held the perspective that we consult, communicate, but where we can’t, we will not fail to govern.”Yes, Mia has the final ball.
Second section… His definition of ‘it’ reminds me of Bill Clinton redefining ‘is’. She is not ‘primus inter pares’, she is ‘it’. The jury is out on what ‘it’ is.
-
The big takeaway from the discussion featured is that there are many unknowns which makes for many imponderables.
-
Reasoned debate is the best way to go. But… people must first be willing to be persuaded by reason.
What I see is people taking firm positions often without listening to the other side of the argument.
I like this Russell woman. She is reasonable.
-
People make their own decisions while nations make theirs.
Leadership in Covid is a thankless task and people are dying.What is the value of a life.
It is worth more to a family and is priceless.
To a nation it is what they contribute to it’s pockets.Money Is Not All
I don’t want to be like a foolish king who sits on an empty throne
Complicated Love
-
And as for my soul brother, Adrian, using breast milk is also following the science.
Same experience I had with the ganglion cyst on my ankle.
Doctor: minor surgery – incision and drainage. No guarantee it will not return.
Nurse: gentle massage nightly after soaking in warm water and Epsom salts. Determine cause – what type of repetitive strain and reduce action to prevent return.
Took the nurse’s advice. And away it went, never to return!
-
Scandal of the suppressed case for ivermectin
By
Edmund FordhamJune 29, 2021
‘WE don’t doubt this is an important paper,’ wrote the senior editor of Lancet Respiratory Medicine on March 9 in response to our paper ‘Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, (See link to view pre-print edition of the paper in the source article) the brainchild of Dr Tess Lawrie and the world’s first Cochrane-standards ‘meta-analysis’ of clinical trials of the long-established anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, for treating, and preventing, Covid-19.
Four expert reviewers were satisfied by revisions already made. ‘The effort of the authors is praiseworthy in this pandemic situation,’ one said. Their critiques had been technical: some of the statistical methods break down when there are no ‘events’ (in this case, deaths) in both ‘arms’ of a clinical trial. Our lead statistician ran more checks; we fixed the criticisms. This is what ‘peer review’ is supposed to do. It’s normal.
One might take such a comment from the senior editor as the preamble to acceptance for publication. But no, this was the editors’ reason for not publishing the paper. This isn’t normal. What was the problem?
‘We don’t doubt this is an important paper, and would likely be widely taken up.’ Hang on, Lancet Respiratory Medicine wants to avoid printing something it recognises as an important paper, that four of their own experts have passed, because it might be ‘widely taken up’? This is what they usually want.
Of course, the Lancet has a lot to live down, having moved into the business of publishing fake news, as with the notorious hydroxychloroquine fraud which I reported on for TCW last year. Not only did the Lancet publish an obvious fake, it did so with hostile editorial commentary and briefing to BBC Radio 4 Today for maximum impact. So media briefing for planted fake news, but a Lancet specialist title won’t touch an ‘important paper’.
SNIP
The paper makes clear that there’s no real doubt that ivermectin is an effective medicine for Covid-19. Multiple clinical trials show it. The Randomised Controlled Trials that our paper analyses are just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty of other trials show it too, but if they were not randomised, according to regulators they don’t count, so our meta-analysis did not include them. Although Risks of Bias are carefully evaluated, disregarding the mountain of evidence from elsewhere, not least the experience and testimony of doctors actually using it, is itself a potent source of bias. You are throwing away all the data that might force you to think. A critic of our paper wrote: ‘a technical tour-de-force based on ritualised ideas’. He’s right, but let’s not argue: our meta-analysis was upon the Regulators’ terms. We played by their rules. That was the point. You want a strict meta-analysis of RCTs only? Take two dozen.
How many do they need? When governments, or regulatory agencies, want to approve medicines, one will do. Dexamethasone, to huge fanfare, was approved last summer on the evidence of just one RCT, though it helps only ventilated patients in the inflammatory stages of the illness, and on its own, by not very much. The FLCCC doctors had been using a different corticosteroid, methylprednisolone, and at higher equivalent doses, long before. In our analysis, ivermectin reduces deaths overall by around 62 per cent, and works at all disease stages. As a prophylactic, it prevents 6 out of every 7 infections that would otherwise occur, and stops household transmission in its tracks. Corticosteroids are vital in the inflammatory phase of the illness, but are useless in the purely viral stage or for prophylaxis.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/scandal-of-the-suppressed-case-for-ivermectin/
-
Good post, 555! What are you smoking THIS morning?
-
DavidAugust 1, 2021 7:21 AM
Do you understand the meaning of diatribe
Xxxxx
No but me thinks the word fits EA posting like a glove
U can have the last word -
Some employers decreased their workers’ wages without their consent. The Barbados Workers’ Union and some people, including me, publicly decried the practice as a breach of contract and unlawful.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GOB closed down the economy and only allowed certain businesses to open and on reduced hours.
Any loss the workers experienced should be refunded by the GOB!!
-
Thanks for being honest by admitting you do not. Of course the blogmaster will always have the last word.
-
What would have happened if ALL businesses were allowed to operate as normal?
How many customers and staff would have died?
Would it have been a safe environment which the law requires businesses to provide?
How many lawsuits would certain businesses have been forced to answer?
These are the questions you must consider before you reach your FIRM position.
But in your extreme right-wing state, you may be incapable of doing so.
-
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
-
That whole discussion was nothing more than a PR fiasco.
All they care about is keeping just enough moneyin circulation so they can continue to pay their mortgages and continue to live the same lifestyles they were accustomed to when the month come while all the rest of us suffer.
Tell the people going to work everyday in government but not getting paid most months with nothing but excuse after excuse. Them people getting evict and chased by debt collectors. Do those people count too or just your much vaulted low COVID numbers?
Time to face facts, you are propping up a failing economy you refused to restructure and then you put red tape, taxes and stumbling blocks in front people trying to get business ideas off the ground.
Also somebody please tell that woman heading BAMP to stop asking for COVID serology surveys to determine the prevalence of COVID because you will probably find lots more people already had it and start a 2021 riot.
-
“How many do they need? When governments, or regulatory agencies, want to approve medicines, one will do. Dexamethasone, to huge fanfare, was approved last summer on the evidence of just one RCT, though it helps only ventilated patients in the inflammatory stages of the illness, and on its own, by not very much” .
1) Very dishonest. There is a “magical thing” called a p-value (p) that is used in the drug approval process. As and example, If we are comparing a drug versus placebo and p >0.05 then we would consider the trial as failed. If P <0.05 but in the neighborhood, then a second trial would considered necessary. In fact, the rule is that a second trial is required unless p is highly significant. If p <0.001, the the FD may consider the evidence so overwhelming that the second trial is not required.
This a good read..
https://www.fda.gov/media/133660/download
An excerpt (statistically persuasive is what I stated above)
Reliance on a single large multicenter trial to establish effectiveness should generally be limited to situations in which the trial has demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically very persuasive effect on mortality, severe or irreversible morbidity, or prevention of a disease with potentially serious outcome, and with other characteristics described below, and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be impracticable or unethical. For example, conducting a second trial after strongly positive trial had demonstrated a decrease in post-infarction mortality, or prevention of pertussis would generally present significant ethical concerns. Repetition of positive trials showing only symptomatic benefit would generally not present the same ethical concerns.2)
“We played by their rules. That was the point. You want a strict meta-analysis of RCTs only? Take two dozen.”The last sentence is not truw. You cannot take any two dozen. A good statistician/clinician would ensure that the studies have a similar patient population, etc. A meta-analysis is more thatn grabboing a bunch of studies an analyzing them.
-
I dislike much of the covid commentary on BU pages. People are just copying and pasting from elsewhere
-
@8:47 a.m
A good read, but if you read the article you will be sick to your stomach at the level of dishonesty.
I have not recovered. -
We need a weekly two hour discussion with our so called medical experts and policy decision makers answering questions posed via phone or posted online from the public, not only from interviewers and journalists probably told to don’t bring up certain topics or you will get blackballed.
We need a panel with Dr Corey Forde, Dr. Elisabeth Ferdinand, Dr. George Belle and Minister Jeffrey Bostic. Come out every week for two hours and face the questions from the taxpayers paying you handsomely to lock them down at home or up at Harrison’s Point.
To get the ball rolling, I want to know
1) What movements are being made towards early outpatient treatment protocols like those listed here (https://c19protocols.com/)?
2) Since vaccinated people can now be asymptomatic or minimally spreaders having viral loads as large as unvaccinated, will they also now be asked to test? -
I came here to comment on Michelle Russel article and got distracted.
I have read a number of her articles and am always impressed on how she deals only in facts..
I do not detect any snobbery; there is no name dropping, she is not a braggadocio and resting on past laurels.
-
@Critical
I sent my doctor the link you provided. He said there are numerous treatment in the paper and several more in the links. He wants to know which of the thousand treatments is the best one.(Of course, what I just said about my doctor is a big lie), but you are just throwing stuff against the wall. GP will come later and approve the list of treatments)
Happy Sunday, GP. -
Thank you Donna
This is for you
David should remove the Star Shitstem as negative resentful anal bajan trolls mark posters posts with extreme prejudice as they are the real bums and all it says is that there is a dirty rotten stinking rat spy snitch in the house like a HAL robot .. but I notice somebody marks AC and The OG up with full marks which must be one of those things that make you go hmmmm..
Only bitches use stars
-
CA
2) Since vaccinated people can now be asymptomatic or minimally spreaders having viral loads as large as unvaccinated, will they also now be asked to test?
CxccccccAlso a question not much asked is one of the efficacy factor in the vaccinated person’s
Its time limitation for protection and the need for boaster shot when the efficacy expires
How will govt proceed on having herd immunity if there is no boaster shot available for those vaccinated and where the safety of the vaccine can be no longer provided for the individual -
@TheOGazerts August 1, 2021 9:33 AM
Let your doctor choose one or read them for yourself, you don’t need a medical degree to understand most of it. Every one of those links is from qualified doctors successfully treating patients . Most if not all have published studies.
You just don’t like the messenger’s politics. Just remember where you got the info from and say thanks if one of the links keep you or yours out the hospital.
-
There are tons and tons and tons and tons of stupid doctors
which is figurative figure of speech more than literal mathematics science
there are 12 north americans in a ton
-
@555
Here come thin-skinned Theo.
After our last encounter I removed your name from my vocabulary. I hold myself responsible (only) for what I do.
Would be most grateful if you leave me out of your star wars.Have a great day.
-
DonnaAugust 1, 2021 8:40 AM
What would have happened if ALL businesses were allowed to operate as normal?
How many customers and staff would have died?
Would it have been a safe environment which the law requires businesses to provide?
How many lawsuits would certain businesses have been forced to answer?
These are the questions you must consider before you reach your FIRM position.
But in your extreme right-wing state, you may be incapable of doing so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just observed what happened in the US, everybody got a cheque from the Government, including the business who were forced to close.
My suggestion is actually quite left wing as was the action of the US Government and the trillions it put out in subsidies!!
Government subsidies to businesses and workers is as left wing a position as it gets.
I would normally abhor it but I recognize the Government caused the shutdown and it should accept the responsibility.
It is the adult position to take, neither left nor right!!
Ensuring a business survives ensures future tax revenues.
Future tax revenues ensures a Government has spare change to spend on its population.
Unfortunately, Government is inherently dishonest so it is more likely the decision to subsidize was neither left nor right, just in the interest of the politicians.
-
“After our last encounter I removed your name from my vocabulary. I hold myself responsible (only) for what I do.”
you may have / got an issue with me
but I ain’t got an issue with you
that would mean there was an involvementsome BU folks mark themselves up
which is as stupid AF
except if you think you are much smarter -
DonnaAugust 1, 2021 8:40 AM
These are the questions you must consider before you reach your FIRM position.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The only entity that took a FIRM position was the GOB.
Just that it didn’t follow up as an adult would and bear the consequences of its decisions.
Some businesses were allowed to remain open.
Some actually thrived!!
-
“My suggestion is actually quite left wing as was the action of the US Government and the trillions it put out in subsidies!!”
saving businesses is capitalistic acrobatic not socialistic social services safety net for the little people who buck up on a hard time stylee
socialising losses
privatising profitssame old same old greedy fat capitalist pigs
-
How many of the 7 people who died from COVID in 2020 or of the 41 who died in 2021 died as a result of businesses being open?
I would submit that when the yearly deaths are examined there won’t be anything out of the ordinary to report, except perhaps if there were fewer deaths than expected.
… which is a possibility.
-
A Casedemic is quite different from a Pandemic.
-
Lol
555 pissing panties about marks
Lol 😆 -
“How many of the 7 people who died from COVID in 2020 or of the 41 who died in 2021 died as a result of businesses being open?”
your logic has disappeared up your bum hole as per usual
the deaths were the signal to ring the alarm and take preventative action against multiple more deaths occurring
-
555 pissing panties about marks
stop exaggerating and crowing
we all know you make down like a petty bitch
you are a known renown basket case of resentment for your party getting a shellacking wipeout and consigned to dustbin of history
always subjective not objective in your diatribe tribal bile
-
But why do you think that I am awarding you or myself stars?
–x–
It goes without saying that all of us can award anyone as many stars as we like.
–x–
It is petty -
stars are a troll function without compunction in bent psyops of information warfare by the kiddie facebook who know who’s users who are political abusers
-
555dubstreetAugust 1, 2021 10:52 AM
555 pissing panties about marks
stop exaggerating and crowing
we all know you make down like a petty bitch
Xxxxxxxxx
Lol 😂😂😂😂😂😂 -
“But why do you think that I am awarding you or myself stars?”
listen to what I said
it is freaky you and AC get 5 stars for below than average mediocre uninspiring common as muck comments
an obvious sign
that
Freaks Come Out at Night
and it isn’t even close to Halloween
-
555dubstreetAugust 1, 2021 11:07 AM
listen to what I said
it is freaky you and AC get 5 stars for below than average mediocre uninspiring common as muck comments
an obvious sign
that
Freaks Come Out at NightXxxxxxxx
A friggin freaky comment 😃😃😃😃 -
Here we go.
-
David
David always gets marked down with one star just for being David
the people who waste time using the function have no integrity
I have never marked down or marked up anyone as it is just personal data used for analysis
-
555dubstreetAugust 1, 2021 11:22 AM
David
David always gets marked down with one star just for being David
the people who waste time using the function have no integrity
I have never marked down or marked up anyone as it is just personal data used for analysis
Xxxxxxx
So silly
Why is the star feature so bothersome to uFreaky
-
Mobile medical unit to resume visits on Wednesday: https://barbadostoday.bb/2021/07/31/mobile-medical-unit-to-resume-visits-on-wednesday/
-
Gibraltar vaccinated 100% but infections rates are still high as I write.
Bhutan, closed its borders early and vaccinated 90% so far only 2 deaths with just 2489 reported infections.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/asia/bhutan-covid-vaccine-rollout-intl-hnk/index.htmlOptions:
1) Close border and we all suck salt which is a recipe for major social misery.
2) Remain open to tourism and accept that the fittest will survive. Ever mindful those as politicians who are now overweight thanks to the rich food they eat in parliament along with the copious amount of big mout drinks will be in de sights of COVID-19.
3) Rigorously enforce protocols to stop de spread through aggressive PR.
4) Encourage etiquette at buffets and promote healthy eating as well as exercise.
5) Accept, we have the power to monitor and manage COVID-19 without the hysteria fueled by the pessimistic influencers, health experts and 24 hour news cycle.
The world is in constant flux just as the virus and we continue to focus on numbers and variants rather than cutting the basic transmission routes. It’s all about the PR but it seem leaders in crises management are lacking the world over.
What will happen when the delta variant mutates to a more virulent strain thanks to the trial vaccines it gets fed with every new transmission. De aliens looking on at the stupidity of the human race.
Nuff money is also being made from the vaccines as the oral antivirals and nasal spray ongoing research is hardly spoken about. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/03/covid-nih-scientists-say-they-may-have-found-a-promising-new-oral-antiviral-drug.html
#OptimismVsPessimism
Leave a Reply to GPCancel reply