Who's Going to Pay the Bills?: Purpose-Driven Coronavirus Business Shutdowns Cause Economic Catastrophe

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are correct. one of my favorite priests on EWTN, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, as a young novice, had no idea what Alinsky-style community organizing was all about until he, and several other novices, were assigned to a Chicago parish that just happened to have two priests trained in the technique. These priests wanted to stop the violence between the Hispanic, Black and Italian gangs and touted Alinskyian style organizing as a way to do this.

Notice that the goal is worthy. Father Mitch says Catholics are particularly vulnerable to these techniques because our faith teaches us to help others. Unfortunately, Alinsky’s community organizers use Marxist techniques that call for someone or some group to be cast as an “enemy” who must be isolated and demonized. They are taught to treat people not as individuals but as symbols.

Alinsky further teaches: “The end justifies almost any means."

It’s interesting to compare Alinsky’s methods to what’s happening now: Americans are being told that it is “virtuous” for state Governors (cheered on by their media) to shut down even the small towns where covid-19 is not a problem. It’s about establishing power and control.


EWTN is airing “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”, again, this Sunday at 1:30 PM. Extremely well-done and educational. Scary, too.
 
Saul Alinsky would be amazed at the influence he supposedly has! Marx and Engels are amateurs compared to him! They only influenced a few countries, but according to the discussion here, Alinsky has influenced virtually every country and every leader–all are lusting for power and see the pandemic as a chance to destroy their own economies.

I have to admit, I don’t see the logic. I also wonder how many of you have actually READ Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Read it. It’s actually surprisingly conservative.

Also, “the Washington model” has been cited over and over by everyone from Trump to the NY Times. Again, how many have read it? Give it a go: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Social Distancing Interventions to Delay or Flatten the Epidemic Curve of Coronavirus Disease - Volume 26, Number 8—August 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

And yes, you can quibble–as lots of people have–over this or that assumption. The report itself spends a lot of time discussing its own limitations. It’s way too long to explain here, but they took factors like age groups (children, adults, adults over 60) and how long an infected person could transmit the disease (5, 6, 7, 8 days) and a bunch of other factors and then ran Monte Carlo simulations (i.e., for each possible combination of factors, they ran 1,000 simulations). They then threw out the extremes on each end–2.5%. Then they looked at what would happen with various scenarios. Let me quote one: “However, our results suggest that all interventions [reducing the number of contacts–“lockdowns”] can result in new epidemic curves once the interventions are lifted.” In other words, the lockdowns can delay, but not stop, the epidemic. “Taken together, our results suggest that more aggressive approaches should be taken to mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Social distancing interventions need to occur in tandem with testing and contact tracing to minimize the burden of COVID-19.”

So, do the lockdowns work? A number of countries have been spectacularly successful: Vietnam (244 cases, no deaths), Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand. But they did what the Washington model suggests: aggressive approaches from the beginning–immediate lockdown, testing randomly and at the first sign of symptoms, contact tracing, quarantining those contacts.
 
State Governors execute business shutdowns and destroy lives, and then they pull “genius” moves like these:


USA Today noted: “In Pennsylvania, about 65% of coronavirus deaths were nursing home residents, and New Jersey had 3,200 residents of long-term care homes die due to complications from the virus, about 40% of the statewide total”.

In New York, over 5,000 nursing home dwellers died on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s watch. That’s a quarter of the state’s deaths.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolfe (D) approved nursing homes’ mandatory acceptance of previous virus patients from hospitals.
In that state, the USA Today network reported: “about 65% of coronavirus deaths were nursing-home residents."
 
Last edited:
None of this matters. You and I are still grandma-killers. This is a one-subject, black and white, only-issue, issue to those who believe we must believe the “science”. We are science deniers and thus of lower intelligence. It wouldn’t matter if you told them 2+2 = 4. I mean, first the scientists told us, “DO NOT wear masks, we are the scientists!” and so people believed them to be right. Now they tell us “MASKS have to be worn at ALL times”. If they wrong the first time, why can’t they be wrong now? Why can’t they be wrong about anything else.

Well, they can.
 
The experts are correct much more often than the non-experts. Cherry-picking instances of incorrect conclusions by experts does not prove otherwise.
 
farronwolf said:
Fetus’ aren’t given the same rights as human beings, so that isn’t a good comparison.
Click to expand...
In The Catholic Church - a human being begins at Conception …

Satan is the main peddler for Murder - including babes in the womb.

_
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The experts are correct much more often than the non-experts. Cherry-picking instances of incorrect conclusions by experts does not prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
In other words, trusting the experts is a gamble, but the odds are better?
 
jeannetherese said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The experts are correct much more often than the non-experts. Cherry-picking instances of incorrect conclusions by experts does not prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
In other words, trusting the experts is a gamble, but the odds are better?
Click to expand...
Yes. Much much better. There is no way to escape some degree of uncertainty.
 
If you were following the conversation the subject wasnt about what the Churchs`s stance on abortion is. It was the legal ramifications of disobeying orders.

Again. Fetus’ arent given the same rights as human beings.
 
Last edited:
But experts do all that research and experimentation.

It is way easier to just wing it. I read that somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
 
farronwolf said:
Fetus’ arent given the same rights as human beings.
Click to expand...
The emphasis would be on the word given, which implies the power to give. The powerful, in this case, are choosing to deny the right to life of the powerless. In addition, some of the powerful are denying the humanity of this group, which makes it easier to justify their execution.
We have seen this occur in the past along racial/ethnic lines (Rwanda’s genocide being a relatively recent example). In this case, it is occurring along age lines.
 
I was responding to your post and you are not rebutting my argument.
Shall we move on?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
So, do the lockdowns work? A number of countries have been spectacularly successful: Vietnam (244 cases, no deaths), Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand. But they did what the Washington model suggests: aggressive approaches from the beginning–immediate lockdown
Click to expand...
This is just false. Taiwan was successful because it did not have a lockdown, proving that lockdowns do not work. Taiwan did other things as you said:
Erikaspirit16 said:
testing randomly and at the first sign of symptoms, contact tracing, quarantining those contacts.
Click to expand...
But no, it did not have a lockdown:
“Taiwan was one of the few places in the world that didn’t go into lockdown and kept its economy running and citizens working while only recording six deaths out of 400 coronavirus cases.”
Let us compare the two countries:
Taiwan with no lockdown: 7 deaths from corona virus.
USA with lockdown: 90,000 deaths from corona virus.
Which is better?
 
Last edited:
I will simply say again. The discussion wasnt about what the Church teaches or what we believe, it was about the lack of legal rights of fetus’
 
Some people here seem obsessed by Saul Alinsky. I’m not sure why…he died 48 years ago, and I suspect conservatives pay a lot more attention to him than liberals. However, as you know from previous posts, I like to give sources, links, and quotations. I almost never give my own opinion. And I actually read links and watch videos that are suggested. The “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” is quite a hit job–photos of machine guns, monkeys, you name it. This technique could make Mother Teresa look bad. But I don’t like to read, see, or hear what “other people” have to say. I actually read stuff. Like “Rules for Radicals.” Do you? Now poor old Saul was an atheist, and the scourge of the earth according to some.

So I’d like to play a little game. I’m going to give 10 quotations. Some are from Saul Alinsky, some are from papal encyclicals. You guess which is which. No fair using Google to search quotations–use your own judgment. To make it easier, I’ve excluded anything from those well-known lefties, John XXIII and Francis and restricted it to 1900 on. I’ll check back in a week to see how you did! Have fun.
  1. …colonizing nations were sometimes concerned with nothing save their own interests, their own power and their own prestige; their departure left the economy of these countries in precarious imbalance—the one-crop economy, for example, which is at the mercy of sudden, wide-ranging fluctuations in market prices.
  2. In certain regions a privileged minority enjoys the refinements of life, while the rest of the inhabitants, impoverished and disunited, “are deprived of almost all possibility of acting on their own initiative and responsibility, and often subsist in living and working conditions unworthy of the human person.”
  3. If you respect the dignity of the individual you are working with, then his desires, not yours; his values, not yours; his ways of working and fighting, not yours; his choice of leadership, not yours; his programs, not yours, are important and must be followed; except if his programs violate the high values of a free and open society.
  4. The times call for coordinated planning of projects and programs, which are much more effective than occasional efforts promoted by individual goodwill.
  5. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice.
 
quiz, part 2!
  1. Countless millions are starving, countless families are destitute, countless men are steeped in ignorance; countless people need schools, hospitals, and homes worthy of the name. In such circumstances, we cannot tolerate public and private expenditures of a wasteful nature; we cannot but condemn lavish displays of wealth by nations or individuals…
  2. Confronted with the materialistic decadence of the status quo, one should not be surprised to find that all revolutionary movements are primarily generated from spiritual values and considerations of justice, equality, peace, and brotherhood.
  3. It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life.
  4. We must make haste. Too many people are suffering. While some make progress, others stand still or move backwards; and the gap between them is widening.
  5. You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.
 
AlNg said:
Taiwan was successful because it did not have a lockdown, proving that lockdowns do not work. Taiwan did other things as you said:
Click to expand...
The success in Taiwan was not due to the absence of a broad-based lockdown. It was because of those “other things”. These intelligent and aggressive measures made a nation-wide lockdown unnecessary. The difference between their response and ours is striking:


Taiwan quickly mobilized and instituted specific approaches for case identification, containment, and resource allocation to protect the public health. Taiwan leveraged its national health insurance database and integrated it with its immigration and customs database to begin the creation of big data for analytics; it generated real-time alerts during a clinical visit based on travel history and clinical symptoms to aid case identification. It also used new technology, including QR code scanning and online reporting of travel history and health symptoms to classify travelers’ infectious risks based on flight origin and travel history in the past 14 days. Persons with low risk (no travel to level 3 alert areas) were sent a health declaration border pass via SMS (short message service) messaging to their phones for faster immigration clearance; those with higher risk (recent travel to level 3 alert areas) were quarantined at home and tracked through their mobile phone to ensure that they remained at home during the incubation period.

Moreover, Taiwan enhanced COVID-19 case finding by proactively seeking out patients with severe respiratory symptoms (based on information from the National Health Insurance [NHI] database) who had tested negative for influenza and retested them for COVID-19; 1 was found of 113 cases. The toll-free number 1922 served as a hotline for citizens to report suspicious symptoms or cases in themselves or others; as the disease progressed, this hotline has reached full capacity, so each major city was asked to create its own hotline as an alternative. It is not known how often this hotline has been used. The government addressed the issue of disease stigma and compassion for those affected by providing food, frequent health checks, and encouragement for those under quarantine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top