1. I need to clear the air on my view of Covid19. I get attacked as being brainwashed, a paid Covid19 fear mongerer, and many more.
I do NOT believe it's just a bad flu. It's NOTHING like a flu. It's far worse. I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist fan, so I do believe
Is Covid19 a pandemic? No. NOT YET.
Then we come to government interference in businesses and our personal lives.
I do believe that wearing masks reduces the risk of spreading
Quite frankly, I think our governments, worldwide, are
If you can provide a negative lab test, why
The initial lockdown of 6 weeks was necessary to prepare all hospitals. Now we know, typical of the ANC government, they failed at that too.
After the initial lockdown, all trade should have reopened, obviously under strict regulations.
This is not a flu virus. It might be family of
We are up against something that is ever mutating, not seasonal and slowly kill more and more people.
Now, the question, to Vaccinate or not to vaccinate.
Personally, I won't. No vaccine for a virus related to the
Having said that, I need to visit my children in NZ and if
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?