鼓勵背後

某些鼓勵的背後，是無視了你要承擔的風險、需要付出的成本、甚至不去了解你為何要這樣做，只因為覺得「鼓勵別人的我真棒」。

因為就算你失敗了，他們也不用為你的人生負責。

他們需要的，從來都不是一句「加油」、「你行的」。

https://www.facebook.com/Charlie87/photos/a.288962131228837/2060398974085135/?type=3&theater

Source: 茶里

https://www.facebook.com/Charlie87/posts/2060397837418582

相關新聞︰

【5.10 母親節】13 歲小記者獲釋　稱尊重記者盼報道事實　母親：採訪是成長階段

永續口罩

永續口罩（上）——銅芯多餘

討論之先，要問問自己為何需要戴口罩，然後才能了解銅口罩的好與壞。先用數十秒想，香港連續兩星期沒有本地個案，你自己不會是患者。那麼戴口罩是為了甚麼？

誠實回答後，可以進入討論了。

首先，關於銅的殺菌原理。銅是可以抑制細菌的，也對不同病毒有一定作用。主要是因為銅離子能夠破壞病毒表面蛋白的活性，使病毒無法感染細胞。但能夠肯定對 WARS 有效嗎？不完全肯定，但科學上客觀估計為有效。

可是，為何要殺滅口罩內的病毒？

這些口罩的用途在於阻隔飛沫（droplet），就是打噴嚏時所產生的，阻隔了就可以，殺滅病毒與否根本不重要。況且，飛沫體積大，只停留在口罩底面外層，而不是濾芯，銅芯的作用不大。即或是一般粘在口罩表面的細菌，也因為碰不到濾芯而能繼續生長。惟一能殺滅的，就只得載於氣懸體（aerosol）內的病原。可是，氣懸體要先被濾芯阻隔，接觸到銅，才有點用（效率也在知道）。但既然都被濾芯阻隔了，已經失去感染力，再殺滅是多此一舉。

要除掉口罩上他病原，最後還是要清洗。不能因為有銅芯就可免。而清洗也只是用清水加入一點梘液就足夠有餘。

https://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-06-2020/62404

----------

永續口罩（下）——銅毒

戴口罩可以先簡單思考利弊，可以是個人層面、整體利益，以至長遠影響。不思考就只能維持現狀，但環境卻在變，就用了過時的方式應對已變的實況。不利，更有害。

政府新派發的口罩含銅，這是人類在醫療用品上鮮有的事。銅的確能殺菌，這在上一篇帖文討論過，只是在口罩內殺菌是多餘。

下一個問題，是銅口罩有沒有害？

由於全宇宙人類史，也沒有出現過含大規模銅口罩，所以沒有直接的醫學研究。不過，科學界對吸入納米銅和銅離子的毒害也有點研究。簡單來說，吸入氧化銅（copper oxide）會增加活性氧物質（reactive oxygen species, ROS），或令肺部細胞氧化。同時，亦有機會引致發炎。

至於，吸入納米金屬銅，亦會增加發炎反應。肺部白血球（中性粒細胞）的數量上升。懷孕老鼠吸入銅，更改變了胎兒出生後的免疫系統，使其脾臟內 T 細胞比例改變。惟未有檢測其長期影響。

那麼，這些實驗的結果能直接與中共爪牙派發的銅芯作比較嗎？不能。因為，實驗的時間不長，不會要求老鼠長時間吸入銅。另外，實驗中所用的劑量或較高，只是現在也不知道銅罩會釋出多少銅。

總括來說，吸入銅，有毒。銅罩會釋出多少銅，未知。我暫時對銅罩的評價為，極可能慢性有毒。至於，為何要在沒有病情的地方戴口罩？這點更值得思索。

Source: 敗傲籮即高 嘥仁時 （Bio Sciences）
https://www.facebook.com/pseudobiologist/posts/922272338222202
https://www.facebook.com/pseudobiologist/posts/922449454871157

中美之間的小規模戰爭有機會爆發

深夜的怪感覺。日本毫無必要地再封鎖多一個月，看來是要製造更多企業倒閉、失業及自殺者，奧運會的投資成為政府負擔。

台灣繼續玩封鎖，但中共有機會攻打台灣。

特朗普就快淡出武漢流感處理，恢復經濟活動。

全個世界的政府陷入癲狂狀態。不關事的菲律賓和印度都玩封城鎖國，嫌命長。

特朗普想套牢習近平，但習近平好像毛澤東當年反對蘇聯干預一樣，不會願意接受美國監督。中美之間的小規模戰爭有機會爆發。問題是在哪裡。

#現在的國際問題，除了導向戰爭之外，沒有出路

Source: 陳雲
https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10158159671022225

動有時 靜有時

昨日終於有人承認了暴動罪。其實只是時間問題，那麼多人被控，總會有一個半個不深入了解而認罪。他的動機和想法，雖有言，但就不作評論了。

不過，可以講一下其影響。

因為有人認罪，在法律上當日事件就是暴動。所以，同日被控的人，在法庭上不能再針對事件是否暴動，只能對有沒有參與其中作辯解。那麼，容易入罪嗎？可以用六七暴動的一個案例講一下。當年，有兩位中學生路過現場，嚇呆了，留下來看巴士被焚。因此，被港英年代的衙役拘捕，控告參與暴動。最後，因無法合理解釋為何留在現場而被定罪。（這就是香港人的所謂法治）

靜有時，動有時，動靜與時。動極而靜，再靜極而動，在這動靜之間謂之機。把握時、機，始動成事。

若果，你認識朋友在 612 被捕，不論被控甚麼（中共爪牙將改控參與暴動），請你勸他盡快找一點幫助，或者到海外升學。錯失時機，則難再有良方。

https://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-04-2020/62332

Source: 敗傲籮即高 嘥仁時 （Bio Sciences）
https://www.facebook.com/pseudobiologist/posts/920836528365783

練乙錚︰高官多為中共地下黨員

前《信報》主筆、香港資深時事評論員練乙錚於4月底接受《大紀元》訪問時表示，在林鄭月娥剛上台時，一位了解內情的朋友告訴他，當時上台那些官員，十居其九是共產黨的地下黨員。從1997年之後，中共就在香港政府部門裡逐漸安插和晉升地下黨員，現在很多重要的位置其實都是地下黨員。因為中共的地下黨員是單線聯繫（與上級以單獨見面的聯絡方式），究竟身邊同僚是否地下黨員他們自己也可能不知道。

中共地下黨遍佈香港？報導指練乙錚曾估算香港有35萬中共黨員。右派《開放》雜誌總編輯金鐘曾表示，香港媒體訪問過一個不願意出名的重量級政治人物，對方指前《文匯報》總編輯金堯如曾經告訴他，當時的特首董建華身邊的「三梁」都是共產黨員，就是梁振英、梁愛詩和梁錦松。

前中共地下黨員梁慕嫻曾公開「推測」梁振英是中共地下黨。梁慕嫻是中共地下黨組織學友社前主席，1974年移居加拿大，決意脫離共產黨，幾年前發表過 《我與香港地下黨》一書，當時曾這樣說：「原來一國兩制還有一塊東西在地下，用這個地下黨的人滲透入政府和各個機構」。

練乙錚訪問影片：https://youtu.be/cBml-WwlLuk

Source: 數字會說話 Number Talks

https://www.facebook.com/numbertalks/posts/252174219497744

Hong Kong is Hong Kong, not China

Hong Kong is Hong Kong, not China.

Hong Kong is it's own nation with its own borders, language and culture.

------

I have personal experience with Hong Kong, I lived and worked there back in 2012. I didn't live in central where there are many expats, I stayed in a place called Cheung Sha Wan which is populated mostly by Hong Kongers. During my time there I got to know the people, the city and I learned about the many differences between Hong Kong and China.

------

The great city-nation of HK became what it is today because of forward-thinking leaders who embraced arts, democracy, entrepreneurialism and principles of liberty.

CCP did not create HK, Hong Kongers made HK - an orderly, culturally rich, economically successful nation comprised of clean streets, very low crime and respectful, hardworking people. (The streets of Hong Kong are among the safest in the world, even safer than our streets here in Australia).

Hong Kong is the greatest side-by-side example of a free nation that developed next to an oppressive nation. Whilst the CCP was systematically torturing and murdering its own people, Hong Kong was thriving as a free nation. Unlike Communist China, citizens of Hong Kong were left free to express themselves, someone like Bruce Lee never could have flourished had he grown up in China, in fact he most likely would have been labelled a "subversive", jailed, or even killed. I wonder how many great Mainland-Chinese thinkers existed that we'll never known about because they were murdered by the CCP?

Freedom runs deep in the veins of Hong Kongers. Many would rather die fighting for freedom than to accept CCP rule, as demonstrated in recent times. How many Hong Kong protesters have been injured, arrested, jailed, tortured and murdered during the protests? The true answer we'll never know.

The Hong Kong Police is not a real police force, it's a sadistic, terroristic enforcement arm of the Chinese Communist Party - a dangerous group of order-takers who at a moments notice are willing to inflict the most violent assaults upon innocent men, women and children.

This violent take-over of a wonderful nation is one of the greatest tragedies of our time and an utterly devastating loss to the world.

Will the world stand by and watch, or will we do something?

Source: Morgan C Jonas
https://www.facebook.com/morgancjonas/posts/158752878940508

最強文宣 成功爭取

香港保皇黨的政客非常流行使用「成功爭取」一詞，小至在「成功爭取」屋苑增設了一台自動販賣機，大至「成功爭取」撤回反送中條例，甚至乎向北京「爭取」雙普選（當然現在還沒成功啦）。其實這是語境的構建，所謂的政治修辭學，重複使用會達到潛移默化的效果。「成功」非常正面，其實貼得出來炫耀所謂的政績，難道會有「不成功」嗎？更仆街的是「爭取」一詞，既矮化民意代表與市民，也構建出上下的關係。

根據三權分立的原則，議會的民意代表與行政機關一字平肩，大家咁高咁大，「爭取」你老母啊？縱使現實的政治現實是現時行政獨大，議員並無多少實權，咁睇無疑是自貶身價。經過公平公正公開的民主程序產生之民意代表，身份是神聖的，因為民意代表是公意的表現，也是政權合法性與正當性的依據，順延下去推理，只要政府不按照民意代表的方向執政，就表示政府與民為敵，政權就會愈來愈失去正當與合法性。

議員你自己跪就算，你製作這些文宣，潛移默化影響市民覺得自己是下位者，必須向上位者（政權）爭取東西。這是非常典型的封建思維，現代的民主理論中，政府不過是「秘書處」，市民才是「老闆們」或「股東」。交稅是因為市民一起夾錢做點事，養住政府這個秘書處而已，並非進貢。既然如此，老闆又何須向秘書「爭取」甚麼呢？

前特首曾蔭權曾經說過，要向北京「爭取」2012雙普選，又是將香港視為下位者，要向上位者北京「爭取」雙普選。真正的雙普選，即是北京不再是老闆，香港市民要做返老闆，政府做秘書處，北京從此便無任何角色。雙普選，即是由現是秘書處長（特首）向現時老闆（北京）嘗試爭取換新老闆（香港市民），整件事有多荒謬？特首、社會賢達和議員爭取一件永遠達不到的事情。想做老闆，一係就收購（如果人家肯賣的話），一係就自己創業，香港人，唔想忍聲吞氣做打工仔，您們有創業的覺悟與氣魄嗎？

（另一方式……你可以轉公司繼續打工嘅……）

Source: 羅庭輝 Dream Law

https://www.facebook.com/lawtingfai/posts/253944505979570

南無阿彌陀佛

宗教的出現，其始是初民為解釋大自然中他們不能解釋的現象而生，後來逐漸變成一種為了得到救贖而形成的道德約束。

為何要得到救贖呢？因為正如佛家所說，此岸乃是眾生作孽受苦、墮落沉淪之地，故希望有一個極樂彼岸可以讓我們逃避這些苦難。這種逃避方式，一開始是限於現世中的形而上，亦即是人們試圖擺脫肉體對靈魂加諸的各種痛苦，無論是生老病死的苦難，抑或是七情六欲的沉淪。這種無視肉身及外在加諸於靈魂一切的方式，使人們的精神雖困於肉體之中，卻能出淤泥而不染，也算是一種自我救贖。

可是，人的意志畢竟有限，再堅強的人單憑一己意志也始終有受不了之時，於是乎人們便需要宗教的救贖，說白了，就是神的救贖。可是神的救贖並不是無條件，其條件往往是勸人向善。基督教要人守七德，去七罪；伊斯蘭教要人修五功（唸、禮、齋、課、朝），去邪念；佛家要人守六根，絕六塵，其教旨核心容或不同，但方向不異，都是勸人向善，不要墮落沉淪，如此而已。

正因如此，所以佛家有所謂大乘與小乘教法之分（有些傳統中也會將金剛乘與大、小二乘並稱為三大派別）。在佛家眾多門派中，沒有任何一個支派流別會自稱「小乘」，因為小乘在佛家門派中是貶義。「乘」在梵文中是「यान」，意思是「船」或「舟」，引伸的意思是教法，亦即能渡人至極樂彼岸的「舟船」（教法），所以小乘就是小船。由於是小船，故能渡的人不多，因此小乘是佛家各派用以貶稱那些修法只為自己得道而沒有抱著觀自在菩薩欲渡眾生至彼岸的崇高精神之派別。當然，那些派別並不會承認自己這種教法有什麼問題（我對於大、小乘各派別教法研究不深，所以我這句話並沒有任何斷論之意，只是單純陳述事實，請勿攻擊）。

從大、小乘之分，我們可以看出，某些派別所以會貶稱其他派別為小乘的原意，是建基於他們本身欲拯拔世人於苦難之中的核心思想，而這種思想，可謂盡得我佛釋迦牟尼說法四十九年之本心。

佛祖最初在菩提樹下悟得三明、四聖諦與十二因緣，證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，因而成佛。三明之「明」（विद्या），又稱為「覺」（बोधि）、「智」（ज्ञान）或者「般若」（प्रज्ञा），與「無明」相反，而「佛」（बुद्ध）作為「悟道者」，亦即是覺醒者，是先悟得三明以自覺，然後說法以覺人。所以說，欲渡眾生擺脫作孽受苦、墮落沉淪之此岸，乃佛家根本要義，亦可以說是一切宗教之要義。

可惜，佛祖雖圓滿具足三明六通，又說法四十九年，遺教法三藏十二部，但畢竟魔道誘人，而正道刻苦，故世人寧願墮落沉淪，也要繼續縱慾肆情，而不願清身絜己，以求將來彼岸之福。

羅素說，文明人與原始人的分別，在於農耕與狩獵的生活模式之別，而這兩種生活模式之別，又源於心態上追求先苦後甜還是先甜後苦的分別。原始人狩獵是一時痛快及滿足目前所需所欲的行為，而文明人農耕則相反，他們忍受目前工作的艱難與痛苦，而期待末冬時收成的快樂。這種心態，亦是願意刻苦守道者與寧願墮落沉淪者之間的分別，故若以羅素的角度看，即使到了現在，我們的世界進入所謂「文明時代」，但在這個「文明」社會中的大部份人都只是野蠻的原始人而已。

到最後，人類始終都選擇捨棄正法正道的救贖方式，繼續飲鴆止渴，以沉淪為救贖，以吸毒來止毒癮，直到油盡燈枯為止，實在可悲可嘆。一眾販粉與黃屍之愚行，皆當作如是觀。南無阿彌陀佛。

Source: 南金東箭
https://www.facebook.com/SGEAorg/posts/249479843078690

瞎眼的人，懼怕光明；無知的人，懼怕知見

是日佛誕。佛出世，是掃除無明，帶來解放。無明是看不到、知不到的意思。無明是無知的意思。

不去看，就不會明，就是無知。目前大部分香港人、大部分世界的人就陷入這個狀態，被自己的第一知見所捆綁，不願意解開。解開了，就是自由。

但自由會丟失捆綁自己的繩子，蒙蔽自己的口罩與眼罩。瞎眼的人，懼怕光明。無知的人，懼怕知見。蝙蝠不敢在白日飛行，蝙蝠倒掛着來休息。

據說很多人願意相信武漢肺炎是蝙蝠所來。就是這個象徵。不是蝙蝠的問題，是這些人是蝙蝠，不能面對光明。

Source: 陳雲
https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10158135744137225

廿三條其實是極難通過的

廿三條其實是極難通過的，原因不是泛民，而是因為有建制派，尤其是商界及自由黨那群商人。2003及2018年的廿三條立法進程失敗是因為商家反對。商家就是財伐也是上層人，他們看的是本土利益，只要法案會影響利益，財閥就會企出來，因此2003年田北辰去北京游說推遲廿三條，2018年鍾國斌叫停廿三條立法諮詢，2019年大劉就逃犯條例提出訴訟。只要影響到商界的利益，上層人是最出力反對，而且是最有效改變政局。

陳雲強調流水抗爭及快閃裝修紅資集團等等的人民制裁，就是想下層人出力改變本土營商環境，然後令上層人靠右，同時界別代表在護法運動開始後就把撒回逃犯條例的工作假手於下層人，在情在理上層人要還人情。

可惜香港上層人縮骨，另一方面泛民引導香港人去止警暴，令香港人停止裝修而去商場唱歌，把本土利益問題改變成本土民生問題。上層人理得你民生好唔好呀！因此上層人沒有出面，人情也不還，結果香港人遲遲未成功。

上層人出面解散功能組別，基本上已經是十拿九穩。泛民卻故意使香港人搞錯目標又搵錯人幫手，泛民更收美中兩邊利益，同時利用基金呃香港人血汗，不給香港人發大財，要香港人窮一生，一世永續抗爭，一世賣弄悲慘貧窮而失敗。窮撚革命，死撚硬。

古代的強國多數近海，近海就有錢，任何時代有錢就是強者，富可敵國。黃絲的鬥黃其實就是憎人富貴嫌人窮，逢紅必反，要人人都窮，因此這群無義的窮撚註定遭泛民玩弄一生。

唔好以為死左就唔洗比泛民利用，泛民連死屍都會利用，不然蘋果日報賣陳彥霖獨家把鬼呀？

註：人道基金有成億都唔買傭兵，而是繼續要香港人被政權打到命都冇是故意的。

Source: 理大爆料
https://www.facebook.com/PolyuNoFilter/posts/2909076732513959

走樣變形，法律武器煉成

談基本法，現在還有什麼意義？有的，每位香港人可以看清楚「要法律有法律」的把戲，目睹「法律武器」如何煉成。

走樣變形之一：避重就輕

一眾護法及梁姓   KOL，言必「香港特區……直轄於中央人民政府。」（基本法12條：香港特別行政區是中華人民共和國的一個享有高度自治權的地方行政區域，直轄於中央人民政府。）

他們詭辯說，由於「直轄」，所以有「全面管治權」（2014國務院一國兩制白皮書僭建），所以特區政府的權，都是我授權，由於有授權，所以有監督權（2014僭建、2020加固）。而中聯辦代表中央人民政府行使監督權（2020僭建），故中聯辦不是中央人民政府所屬各部門，不受基本法二十二條約束（2020僭建），意味中聯辦日後可以放手干預。

山泥傾瀉，基本法倒冧，巨石壓死人，源於所謂「全面管治權」，再源於「直轄」。

一眾玩弄法律的護法，強調「直轄」，卻不講前一句更重要的「高度自治」。

抓着「直轄」做文章，就是輕重不分，因為很多城市都「直轄」，北京、上海、天津、重慶，都直轄中央，香港特區和中央關係與這四個城市一樣嗎？當然不是，我們從來不會相提並論，因為「直轄」徒是同一名字，在香港的涵義完全不一樣。

涵義如何不一樣，就因為前一句：「高度自治」。

要注意，不單是「自治」，是「高度自治」；因為香港人一早知道共產黨的把戲，香港人要的，不是西藏式「自治」或新疆式「自治」，要的是「高度自治」。

走樣變形之二：不顧初衷

如何體現「高度自治」？就寫明在基本法「中央與特別行政區關係」一章節裡的十二條條文中，權責分明，中央負責國防、外交。全段沒有「全面管治權」、沒有「監督權」三字；「中聯辦」三字，全部基本法都找不到。

那麼，中央如何「監督」香港？特區政府如何向中央負責？基本法亦已寫得清楚：行政長官與主要官員由中央政府任免，立法會通過的法案要交人大常委備案，人大常委有權發回。若有什麼情況要修改基本法，權力在全國人民代表大會，但要香港立法會三分之二同意等程序。這就是中央政府「監督」的方式，這就是體現高度自治的條文，這就是基本法給中央政府「監督」的權限。

為何有這樣高度的自治？因為自知極權體制無市場，初衷正是要安撫人心，白紙黑字，提供萬分保證。兩制中的高度自治，正是當年香港人肯回歸的前提。

現在，一眾權貴只談「直轄」權力、全面管治、不受制約；談授出權力就有監督權，「這道理不言自明」（中聯辦文章）；有白紙黑字的監督途徑拋諸腦後，拿出「不言自明」的虛無飄渺說法隨意抓權；兩制初衷，高度自治，統統埋葬。

走樣變形之三：無中生有

至於中聯辦角色，從頭到尾，它負責「聯絡」，「聯絡」二字，鑿在「中央政府駐香港特區聯絡辦公室」的招牌上。其成立時公布的職能，都是「聯絡」，沒有「監督」、沒有「協調選舉」。當然，一眾詭辯能人，可以說：有呀！最後一項職能寫住「承辦中央人民政府交託的其他事項」嘛。「其他」，即是乜都得啦。

中聯辦2000年成立時，首任主任姜恩柱明言「中聯辦與特區不存在隸屬關係」、「不會干預香港自治範圍內的事務」。近年來，中聯辦幕後指點江山、協調選舉、勸退候選人、經營書店、指點傳媒，都是人盡皆知的事實。

最新講法，中聯辦代表中央政府監督香港特區，若然如此，自然代表中聯辦與特區政府有從屬關係，以往承諾一風吹。以後，行政會議與早禱會，不如搬去西環開。

根據護法權貴的強盜邏輯，若立法會議員不贊成《國歌法》立法，就要喊打喊殺，控告公職人員行為失當，甚至要DQ；那麼，很多人反對廿三條立法，是否全部民主派議員、反對立法的公務員，統統被DQ？反對廿三條立法的人，統統都叛國？

走樣變形之四：白馬非馬

強盜邏輯又謂，港澳辦不屬於國務院組成部門，但不要忘記，港澳辦全名是「國務院港澳事務辦公室」。

「國務院港澳辦不屬國務院部門」，中聯辦不是「一般意義」的中央部門，「聯絡」其實是「監督」，「兩制」其實是「一國」，「一國」其實是「一黨」。一年前的我，十年前的我，二十年前的我，統統打倒，人仰馬翻，口腫臉腫。

一本基本法，努力扭曲，盡情玩弄，法律武器煉成，一切「依法」；然後，港澳辦的聲明中還有這一句：「法律是神聖的」。

Source: 區家麟
https://aukalun.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post_23.html

高官浮沉看「政治覺悟」

黨國戰狼外交官，酷愛示範強國傲慢，本來武漢肺炎經驗是攏絡人心一張好牌，但死口不認爆發源頭是武漢，延誤應對，害得各國雞毛鴨血，復要求人家感恩，渴望得到尊重。這款德性，如何服人，如何符合國家利益？這是什麼外交官？

口痕友謂，不要天真，不要以為這些官員的言論乃為了國家利益；他們政治覺悟力極高，深謀遠慮，言必民族復興國家偉大，政治正確一百分；他們深明，言論縱使惹怒友邦，對仕途百利而無一害；戰狼上身，都是為自己，這時代這體制，就是愛死這種人。

內地《財新》記者發了一篇採訪手記，旋即遭滅聲：武大中南醫院院長王行環忠於專業，早於一月十日已提醒上級疫症嚴重，其後不識趣地不斷上報疑似病例，被上級多次批評「政治覺悟不高」、「注意政治影響」。「政治覺悟」四字，可圈可點，其實就是說，一切政治先行，潛規則你應該知道，上級不會明言「政治凌駕生命」，你看着辦。

香港特區政府的基本法二十二條新聞稿彈出彈入事件，顛倒再顛倒，跪低再跪低，短短幾小時內，寫了又錯，錯了再改，凌晨過後再打倒昨日之我；政制及內地事務局局長聶德權最終認錯道歉，打倒兩年前的我，再打倒十三年前的特區政府說法，連環反艇。也難怪，黨國權貴一向擅於顛三倒四，黑白無常，正常人不可能追得上各種創意演繹。

香港人也許可以慶幸，這群高官當中還有些人政治覺悟力極低，他們會跟隨原則與既定政策回應，原則問題，黑白分明，沒有「注意政治影響」這回事；基本法二十二條與中聯辦地位，若你不是文盲，有一丁點常識就能明白，當然也不能指鹿為馬，打倒一直以來的官方講法，於是就出稿。

老闆不作聲，不做醜人，其實緊盯着你，請你醒醒定定，自己領悟；豈料有人道行不深，悟性不夠，陷皇上謀臣於不義，闖了大禍。

特區政府高層大換班，千古罪人如鄭若驊李家超，愈是民望低代表愈是忠誠，穩坐高位，屹立不倒，仙福永享。特區政壇生態，主子一搖尾，群雞即起舞，肯出賣專業良知者，扶搖直上，奉迎不嫌醜陋，具政治覺悟者為俊傑，學嘢。

政治悟性不夠高的現眼報，局長聶德權被調去無關痛癢的公務員事務局，上位的那新星，我忘了名字，只記得他辦公室牆櫃擺設，有偉大領袖習近平照片的瓷碟。

那碟用來做什麼的？

選擇題：一，裝包子；二，裝飯食，食完連汁都舔埋；三：一日五次跪地向北膜拜。

Source: 區家麟
http://aukalun.blogspot.com/2020/04/blog-post_21.html

Can a virus undermine human rights?

Exceptional situations require exceptional measures. Faced with the magnitude of the health risks caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, national governments have had to quickly decide whether or not to declare a state of emergency to curb the spread of the disease.

Where a health threat constitutes a danger for the whole population, then the suspension of ordinary law is legitimate to increase the government's capacity to protect society. A state of necessity justifies the state of emergency. This state provides a legal framework for the limitation of individual freedom during a short period of time, such as the freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, and entrepreneurial freedom. This state enables governments to requisition goods and services, to shut down public or private facilities, and to take binding measures that would normally be seen as
infringements of basic rights. Health security becomes a matter of public security.

Exceptional situations require exceptional means. Faced with an imminent threat, governments do not
hesitate to use the latest mass surveillance technologies. China is making use of drones, facial recognition cameras, and Quick Response code technology to monitor the whereabouts of its citizens. South Korea, Singapore, and Israel are extracting Global Positioning System data from mobile phone networks, credit card information, and video images to monitor the outbreak. These countries exercise an intrusive biopolitics where everybody can be watched, screened, and monitored in their every movement. Although such observation from a distance is effective in containing COVID-19, there is little knowledge on how these data will be stored over the long term and how tempting it will be for governments to maintain increased amounts of surveillance in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Can exceptionality jeopardise some democratic principles in the long term? Could the epidemic lead to a reduction of individual rights after the peak of the crisis? The first risk is that some exceptional measures adopted in the context of an emergency might eventually fall within the scope of ordinary legislation, if leaders argue that a widespread health threat could resurface at any time. In the USA, the Patriot Act has infringed on civil liberties in the long run by allowing security agencies to spy on every American without due process. In France, after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, an anti-terrorism law reduced civil liberties by curtailing judicial oversight of security tools. Many intellectuals argue that such normalisation of emergency measures has become a trend in democracies.

The second risk is that governments might take advantage of the substantial effect of this crisis
to administer a so-called shock strategy, aimed at strengthening surveillance politics. As Naomi Klein has pointed out, this strategy consists of a government seizing the opportunity of a national trauma—e.g. a war, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster—to make radical reforms that would have been considered unacceptable beforehand. Many governments could take advantage of tracking technologies, artificial intelligence, and robotics to expand invasive surveillance. Governments
will most likely seek to watch over the intimate life of the public, to predict and monitor their behaviours and movements. These practices could morph into the panoptic surveillance of the lives of citizens.

The third risk is that fear could change the value citizens accord to freedom. As global biological and
environmental threats increase, citizens might be disposed to give up some of their constitutional rights. The aspiration to security can quickly erode the desire for freedom. This aspiration can lead to individuals preferring the authority of a leader to the ethics of democratic discussion. Citizens might even call for the soft security of smart technologies and algorithmic governance.

In health, tracking technologies are effective in improving health research, anticipating health threats,
and mitigating individual at-risk behaviors. This effectiveness is why governments will be tempted
to bring mass surveillance into ordinary laws. The evolution is underway: many national health regulators, research centres, and health-care providers around the world already make use of personal data. On one hand, health tracking systems are valued for their exceptional benefits in terms of disease prevention, therapeutic follow-ups of patients, and epidemiological monitoring. On the other hand, no one can ignore the risk that the bulk collection of data can transform the surveillance of
health issues into the surveillance of individuals, with a whole range of possible information on lifestyles, personal choices, and territorial, social, and minority affiliations. In authoritarian countries, such a situation can lead to the stigmatisation of social minorities. Thereis no reason to consider liberal democracies immune tothis risk.

Is there any reason to remain optimistic? Major crises that cause societal shocks can ultimately provoke positive ways of reconsidering the common good and fundamental rights. The participation of women in the war effort between 1914 and 1918, for example, led to the extension of the right to vote to women in many countries. The end of World War 2 provided an opportunity for European countries to rethink the social contract around inclusive health protection systems. All things considered, it is the appropriate time now, as humanity is facing the crisis, to start thinking about the post-COVID-19 reconstruction. In this debate, fundamental rights should not be sidestepped, especially in countries with weak privacy and data protection policies.

How can humans think about health crisis management systems that protect society without undermining individual freedom? National legislatures should adopt adequate rules to ensure that health surveillance and monitoring policies will be strictly prescribed by law, proportionate to public health necessities, done in a transparent manner, controlled by independent regulation authorities, subject to constant ethical reflection, non-discriminatory, and respectful of fundamental rights.

Source: Olivier Nay
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2468-2667%2820%2930092-X

全球大蕭條

政治市，國師午間教路。世上兩大經濟強國——德國和美國都在廣泛測試國民的冠狀病毒抗體，夠數之後就逐步解封各州各市，恢復正常。

國民麻醉醒來，面對的是各國用國家行政暴力聯手封城罷市促成的全球大蕭條。而即使解封，限聚令仍生效，故此工人不能大量抗議集會，四個以內的工人、各距離1.5米的示威是容許的。

至於香港，依照緊貼中國疫區、遲遲未封關而香港人的發病率這麼低，應該大部分香港人已有抗體（微生物學家曾經暗示），不過政府不夠膽解封，因為中共資金借助濫發人民幣而來港大肆收購香港人資產及變賣香港政府公共資產（鐵路、機場、隧道、公屋、官地、地租收入、公務員退休金貯備...）的過程仍未開始。

等到香港人脫了口罩醒來，失業率高企、公司店鋪倒閉、銀行壞帳充斥、政府沒錢救濟人民的日子就會到來。

我不妨告訴各位，經濟調整的日子長達數十年，除非陳雲執政，香港人的苦日子不會終止。而陳雲執政的機會是零。

在華文世界，只有陳雲有能力告訴你這個真相。我有能力告訴各位，就有能力解決。不過，香港人把我趕走啦。

Source: 陳雲
https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10158091547837225

特朗普的良心

特朗普的良心。武漢流感是不足掛齒的弱感冒，健康的人戴口罩是鳩戴，甚至有害，但西方政府及財團密謀脫鉤中國，並且借流感製造經濟大蕭條，特朗普總統也沒什麼好說的，只能同意。

但總統留下一個心跡給世上的人知道：他不會戴口罩。

什麼叫心跡？這是古文詞彙。鳩讀白話文長大的一代中港台華人廢物，是不會明白的。

（當然，我好肯定特朗普或幕僚有讀我的貼文，知道大國元首一定不可以屈服在武漢廢流感之下！）

Source: 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/10158037855287225

https://www.facebook.com/589657224/posts/10158580781112225/

病毒是醫學，防疫是政治

病毒是醫學，防疫是政治。港共不是要防疫，而是要劃出一個時間的空檔，制定香港人民的biometrics（生物辨識術/生物測定法則），之後在其他正常日子，好好使用。

各位看看圖畫，在量度的時候，差役與餐廳食客的距離並非1.5米，而是無限制地接近，在一個理論上已經可以感染你的距離。在餐廳阿姐、大廈看更給你採集體溫數據的時候，距離並非1.5米，而是無限制地接近，在一個已經可以感染你的距離。昨晚的餐廳檢查顯示，當差役進入餐廳的時候，他們是不會被餐廳職員量度體溫的。

量度者是不計算biometrics的，被量度者要遵守biometrics，這是subject與object的關係，權力行使者與權力接受者的關係。你要遵守，他們不需要遵守，這就是傅柯說的權力（power）。只准州官放火，不准百姓點燈。從古代到現代，權力都是這樣行使的，只是古代的貴族權力收藏在宮廷，現代的民選政府的權力的悖論要做到在街頭給你看見為止！

為什麼一個普通的餐廳職員、大廈看更阿伯，在特首頒布的法例之後，可以忽然變身成為一個量度體溫的專業人士？他們在無限制距離接觸市民的時候，有否經過無菌、無病毒的檢定？無囉。他們只是經過權力轉身，只是經過power transformation，no training and no qualification needed。這些幫你量度體溫的餐廳洗碗大姐和打瞌睡躲懶的看更阿伯，他們呼出的氣息可以接近你鼻孔的時候，你有沒有一刻懷疑過他們可以即時感染你？不會囉，因為你信任權力。他們好像文革期間的紅衛兵那樣，戴了紅袖章就是紅衛兵，他們不是經過軍訓和遵守軍規的解放軍，於是紅衛兵可以更自由地虐殺人。

為什麼這段期間，大廈管理公司可以容許60歲以上的高危年齡群組的看更阿伯上班，執行任務？為什麼不遵守醫學建議，給他們放有薪假期，好好保護這群老人？不會囉。

這是權力的悖論，權力就是靠悖論（paradox）來執行的，我在哲學課堂講述過，哲學不是什麼虛無飄渺的學問，是非常之實在的，大家可以親眼見到的。（當然，要有好的哲學家導師。不是哲學家，無法講哲學課。）

香港人，你們明白了沒有？Power must be seen and measured and disrupted by the executor.  現代的權力，一定要被看見、被量度（這裡用標尺）而且被執行者違反，才是權力。圖畫當中，右邊的差役低了頭，很不好受，因為他內心大概知道自己太接近顧客，違反了1.5米的所謂防疫距離。左邊的差役，做事心無障礙，日後可以升官發財。

裡面最正常的，是一隻好奇的小狗，他/她在想：你班人類在做乜鳩？（對不起，我將人類的粗口給了小狗狗。）

政府在防疫？我講了三個月，你今日明白了吧。我講述傅柯的時候，老早講過的。在全世界，只有我在最緊要的時刻，向各位介紹傅柯的哲學。

你以為哲學無用？深層國家是根據哲學來制定統治方法的，裡面有一個人懂得，就可以統治一億人。人類在統治者眼中，只是一堆biometrics。

為什麼2003年沙士期間，不會搞這些無聊防疫措施，而是前線醫護拼命救人，微生物學家拼命研究沙士病毒的基因排序，市面的市民大眾拼命維持消費和繁榮，沒人逼你戴口罩，大家咬緊牙根互相支援，香港一切生活如常？

當中的差別，是因為當時在中環雪廠街的舊政府總部坐了一個哲學家的政府研究總監，他的名字叫陳雲。現在他被共產黨及泛民排擠，丟失公職、教席及八個報紙專欄，無法在公共輿論發表評論，否則我這篇文章會在《信報》或《明報》出現。

（圖片來源：網絡）

Source: 陳雲

https://www.facebook.com/589657224/posts/10158013989222225/

《台北法案》：避免明日台灣成為今日香港的一著

美國總統特朗普日前簽署由美國參眾兩院通過、簡稱「台北法案」的《2019年台灣盟邦國際保障與強化倡議法》（Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act）。

或許該法案與本港並非直接相關，只是集中闡述美國支持台灣為「外交盟友」（diplomatic alliances）；加上在主權移交後，大部分人習慣把自治權與外交關係假手於人，因此「台北法案」未有在本地產生什麼回響。

然而自去年逃犯修例後，泛民黃色議員及群眾再把「今日香港，明日台灣」的口號掛在口上。如果這是大家所相信的說法，今日（至少）理應懂得從本港「一國兩制」的失敗去理解《台北法案》的國際政治意義，又應該知道該部法案其實是與香港息息相關。

《台北法案》包含以下四個範疇：

1) 與台灣之外交關係（Diplomatic Relations with Taiwan）：簡述台灣近年政治狀況及中台關係；說明美國總統於保護台灣主權所擔任的角色；

2) 美台經貿關係（Trade and Economic Relations with Taiwan）：美台應加強雙邊貿易關係，從而刺激兩地經濟；

3) 有關台灣參與國際組織之政策（Policy of the US with regard to Taiwan’s Participation in International Organization）：以不同方式支持台灣參與各個國際組織；

4) 加強美台關係（Strengthening of Ties with Taiwan）：支持加強美台外交關係，以不同方式支援台灣之國際關係、繁榮穩定（prosperity）及安全（security）；每年提交報告予國會之委員會（congressional committees）。

以上四個範疇，是美國直接承認及加強台灣的國際地位之法律框架，並不止是在外交關係上「認可」（endorse）台灣；與香港關係法相較，後者只是概括地說明香港主權移交後美國對港政策之保證。

由此理解，《台北法案》用字較為進取（例如“strengthening of ties”、“strengthening bilateral trade and economic relations”、“advocate for Taiwan’s membership”）；而香港關係法則較保守（例如“continued application”、“seek maintain and expand economic and trade relations”、“respect Hong Kong’s status”）*。

結論：如果你曾經想過今日香港是明日台灣的話，那就請你花時間思考一下，為什麼《台北法案》是與香港人直接相關，甚至乎是香港存亡未卜的關鍵。

*註：當然，在香港關係法在1992年通過時，誰會想到今日香港是中共一制。

Source: Chung-Tai Cheng 鄭松泰
https://www.facebook.com/chengchungtai/posts/1468502379990781

----------

Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act of 2019

...

(7) Taiwan’s unique relationship with the United States, Australia, India, Japan, and other countries are of significant benefit in strengthening Taiwan’s economy and preserving its international space.

...

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the United States and Taiwan have built a strong economic partnership, with the United States now Taiwan’s second largest trading partner and with Taiwan the 11th largest trading partner of the United States and a key destination for United States agricultural exports;

(2) strong United States-Taiwan economic relations have been a positive factor in stimulating economic growth and job creation for the people of both the United States and Taiwan; and

(3) the United States Trade Representative should consult with Congress on opportunities for further strengthening bilateral trade and economic relations between the United States and Taiwan.

...

It should be the policy of the United States—

(1) to advocate, as appropriate—

(A) for Taiwan’s membership in all international organizations in which statehood is not a requirement and in which the United States is also a participant; and

(B) for Taiwan to be granted observer status in other appropriate international organizations;

(2) to instruct, as appropriate, representatives of the United States Government in all organizations described in paragraph (1) to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to advocate for Taiwan’s membership or observer status in such organizations; and

(3) for the President or the President’s designees to advocate, as appropriate, for Taiwan’s membership or observer status in all organizations described in paragraph (1) as part of any relevant bilateral engagements between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, including leader summits and the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should—

(1) support Taiwan in strengthening its official diplomatic relationships as well as other partnerships with countries in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world;

(2) consider, in certain cases as appropriate and in alignment with United States interests, increasing its economic, security, and diplomatic engagement with nations that have demonstrably strengthened, enhanced, or upgraded relations with Taiwan; and

(3) consider, in certain cases as appropriate, in alignment with United States foreign policy interests and in consultation with Congress, altering its economic, security, and diplomatic engagement with nations that take serious or significant actions to undermine the security or prosperity of Taiwan.

Source: US Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1678/text?fbclid=IwAR2SW9b0vX7NcqAFLy8mRma5IRWh_sKlSJXSy3B7E9pAgdLt2X8L1ToF2n8

----------

UNITED STATES-HONG KONG POLICY

...

§5711. Bilateral ties between United States and Hong Kong

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, should be the policy of the United States with respect to its bilateral relationship with Hong Kong:

(1) The United States should play an active role, before, on, and after July 1, 1997, in maintaining Hong Kong's confidence and prosperity, Hong Kong's role as an international financial center, and the mutually beneficial ties between the people of the United States and the people of Hong Kong.

(2) The United States should actively seek to establish and expand direct bilateral ties and agreements with Hong Kong in economic, trade, financial, monetary, aviation, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural, sport, and other appropriate areas.

(3) The United States should seek to maintain, after June 30, 1997, the United States consulate-general in Hong Kong, together with other official and semi-official organizations, such as the United States Information Agency American Library.

(4) The United States should invite Hong Kong to maintain, after June 30, 1997, its official and semi-official missions in the United States, such as the Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office, the Office of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, and the Hong Kong Tourist Association. The United States should invite Hong Kong to open and maintain other official or semi-official missions to represent Hong Kong in those areas in which Hong Kong is entitled to maintain relations on its own, including economic, trade, financial, monetary, aviation, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural, and sport areas.

...

§5712. Participation in multilateral organizations, rights under international agreements, and trade status

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, should be the policy of the United States with respect to Hong Kong after June 30, 1997:

(1) The United States should support Hong Kong's participation in all appropriate multilateral conferences, agreements, and organizations in which Hong Kong is eligible to participate.

(2) The United States should continue to fulfill its obligations to Hong Kong under international agreements, so long as Hong Kong reciprocates, regardless of whether the People's Republic of China is a party to the particular international agreement, unless and until such obligations are modified or terminated in accordance with law.

(3) The United States should respect Hong Kong's status as a separate customs territory, and as a WTO member country (as defined in section 3501(10) of title 19), whether or not the People's Republic of China participates in the World Trade Organization (as defined in section 3501(8) of title 19).

§5713. Commerce between United States and Hong Kong

It is the sense of the Congress that the following, which are based in part on the relevant provisions of the Joint Declaration, are and should continue after June 30, 1997, to be the policy of the United States with respect to commerce between the United States and Hong Kong:

(1) The United States should seek to maintain and expand economic and trade relations with Hong Kong and should continue to treat Hong Kong as a separate territory in economic and trade matters, such as import quotas and certificates of origin.

(2) The United States should continue to negotiate directly with Hong Kong to conclude bilateral economic agreements.

(3) The United States should continue to treat Hong Kong as a territory which is fully autonomous from the United Kingdom and, after June 30, 1997, should treat Hong Kong as a territory which is fully autonomous from the People's Republic of China with respect to economic and trade matters.

(4) The United States should continue to grant the products of Hong Kong nondiscriminatory trade treatment by virtue of Hong Kong's membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

(5) The United States should recognize certificates of origin for manufactured goods issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(6) The United States should continue to allow the United States dollar to be freely exchanged with the Hong Kong dollar.

(7) United States businesses should be encouraged to continue to operate in Hong Kong, in accordance with applicable United States and Hong Kong law.

(8) The United States should continue to support access by Hong Kong to sensitive technologies controlled under the agreement of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (commonly referred to as "COCOM") for so long as the United States is satisfied that such technologies are protected from improper use or export.

(9) The United States should encourage Hong Kong to continue its efforts to develop a framework which provides adequate protection for intellectual property rights.

(10) The United States should negotiate a bilateral investment treaty directly with Hong Kong, in consultation with the Government of the People's Republic of China.

(11) The change in the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong should not affect ownership in any property, tangible or intangible, held in the United States by any Hong Kong person.

Source: US Congress
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter66&edition=prelim

港共的部署

港共的部署是一步一步來的，先吸引有外國護照的港人回流，再對所有香港人推行連坐式的高壓統治。

Timeline是這樣的：

1. 政府和輿論機器強調瘟疫是外國傳入，並指責外國防疫不力，欺哄有外國護照的香港人紛紛回港。

2. 政府對全球國家發出紅色旅遊警示，並規定從外國回港的香港人須隔離14日，令港人不會再離境。政府之後禁止非香港居民從外國入境，斷絕國際對香港的監察、援助和交往。

3. 從外國回港的香港人須戴電子手帶強制隔離。不分派系的傳媒及香港人街上緝拿手帶人，批評政府措施不夠嚴格。

4. 政府認為最有效的防疫方法是限制社交活動和商店營運模式，遂採取更嚴厲的防疫手段：禁止四人以上聚集，市民連出外消遣如進食、做運動、借書、飲酒的自由都受限制。

英國好廢、美國好廢？持外國護照的香港人爭相回流避難，我真係恭喜你呀！歡迎來到2020年的極權主義社會──香港。Welcome to 2020 Fascist state, Hong Kong. 你們上世紀沒有向共產黨統一香港say no，之後縱容港共高壓管治香港人，沒有放過賣港賊，現在便回來好好enjoy what you deserve，這是你和我的共業。

Source: 我要焦土 Let You Burn
https://www.facebook.com/letyouburn/posts/124218999175469

12 Experts Question The COVID-19 Panic

Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.

#1 Dr Sucharit Bhakdi

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology.  He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

What he says:

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened.  The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people.  The consequences on medical care are profound.  Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBB9bA-gXL4

#2 Dr Wolfgang Wodarg

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.  In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

What he says:

Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions.  Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […]  And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like "How did you find out this virus was dangerous?", "How was it before?", "Didn’t we have the same thing last year?", "Is it even something new?"

That's missing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_AyuhbnPOI

#3 Dr Joel Kettner

Dr Joel Kettner is Professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

What he says:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this.  I'm not talking about the pandemic, because I've seen 30 of them, one every year.  It is called influenza.  And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are.  But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I'm trying to understand why.

I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people.  I worry about many, many consequences related to that.

In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000.  So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.

– "LISTEN: CBC Radio cuts off expert when he questions Covid19 narrative", Off Guardian, 17th March 2020

#4 Dr John Ioannid

Dr John Ioannid is Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.  He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.  He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research.  In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research.  He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.

What he says:

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low?  No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people.  However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.

If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to "influenza-like illness" would not seem unusual this year.  At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.

– "A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data", Stat News, 17th March 2020

#5 Dr Yoram Lass

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry.  He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country.  In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.

...there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009.  That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it.  But what?  At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy.  The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

#6 Dr Pietro Vernazza

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

What he says:

We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China.  This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection.  90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.

In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected.  Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the end of their lives.

If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.

– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020

#7 Frank Ulrich Montgomery

Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

What he says:

I'm not a fan of lockdown.  Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again.  Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal?  You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year.  Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine.  Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect.  They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.

– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020

#8 Prof. Hendrik Streeck

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist.  He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

What he says:

The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1.  The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak.  But that is also an advantage:  Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.

You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement.  Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics.  But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020

#9 Dr Yanis Roussel et. al.

Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.

What they say:

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.  This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).

…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients.  The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.

– "SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data", International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020

#10 Dr. David Katz

Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center.

What he says:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself.  The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will.  The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.

– "Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?", New York Times 20th March 2020

#11 Michael T. Osterholm

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

What he says:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.

[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and "run" society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible.  With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.

– "Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure", Washington Post 21st March 2020

#11 Dr Peter Goetzsche

Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration.  He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.

What he says:

Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian.  They will only get in trouble if they do too little.  So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do.

No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere.  We cannot close down the whole world permanently.

Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this.  And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time.  But remember the joke about tigers. "Why do you blow the horn?" "To keep the tigers away." "But there are no tigers here." "There you see!"

– "Corona: an epidemic of mass panic", blog post on Deadly Medicines 21st March 2020

Source: Tyler Durden
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/12-experts-question-covid-19-panic

A Crisis is the Perfect Time to Seize Power

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery,” Thomas Jefferson once said. That sentiment has been somewhat seared onto the American conscience ever since; but while the trajectory of Jefferson’s life indicates that he meant it, do we?

A quick glance back over our country’s history would suggest we do not.

During times of “crisis,” both perceived and real, history instead shows a nation that is, for the most part, readily willing to give up essential liberties in exchange for promised security. It also portrays a government that is more than willing to capitalize on the fears of its people and use a crisis to expand its power.

After the attacks of 9/11, we saw one of the largest expansions of government occur right before our eyes. The 4th amendment right to privacy was eviscerated with the passage of the Patriot Act a mere six weeks after the buildings came down. The few civil libertarians who raised concerns about this drastic response were hushed with assurances that the bill would sunset.

Instead, we still live under its continual renewals to this day, and we know (thanks to American hero and whistleblower Edward Snowden) that the encroachments on our rights have in actuality far-surpassed even the bill’s permissive statutes on surveillance of American citizens.

Few even bother to protest this new normal anymore. What’s worse, it seems a lot of people have been convinced that these programs actually keep them safe and would prefer to give up this essential human right for that assurance — even without evidence that it is true.

So make no mistake as we move into the most recent crisis within our borders, the Coronavirus, there will be many seeking to grow the government’s control in the name of security. And unfortunately, there will also be a lot of Americans willing to follow their leaders right off that cliff because they’re afraid.

Already, we’ve seen proponents of authoritarian governments, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, use the 38 deaths under this illness in the U.S. to call for unrelated responses like mortgage-relief, cancelling student loans, and universal basic income.

There’ve also been (inevitable) calls for giving the same government that can’t figure out how to disperse testing kits for COVID-19 complete control of our healthcare. It makes sense if you don’t think about it whatsoever.

And, as of last night, President Trump has used the pandemic to cease travel between the U.S. and many other countries — an action that, let’s be honest, has been his desire all along.

In a crisis there are precautions to take, and there are ways to help your fellow man without depending on the government to come in and take control of your life. Offer to go get groceries or other supplies for those actually at risk right now (the elderly and immunocompromised), wash your hands and don’t be gross. Stay away from large crowds.

But don’t get crazy and hand over your liberties to the entity least capable of actually protecting you — the government.

Source: Hannah Cox

https://medium.com/@hanarchist/a-crisis-is-the-perfect-time-to-seize-power-ed2750db2123