Welcome to Closing Statements of The Great VIRAL Debate. Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section. Dr Piers Robinson is our chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition under debate is:
SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach
Dr Rancourt, arguing against the proposition, closes his argument:
These closing statements, following the openings and two rounds of debate, were submitted simultaneously, in parallel, without prior viewing.
Tim’s position is anchored in his beliefs that:
a. A new virus (“SARS-CoV-2”) has been discovered that is unlike any other viral respiratory disease virus.
b. The deaths assigned to have been caused by COVID-19 are due to the new virus.
I address these beliefs below.
On this basis, Tim advances his main thesis that a difference in “COVID deaths” between “neoliberal countries (UK, USA, Sweden, Brazil)” and “more independent countries (China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria)” is caused by decimated and badly managed medical systems in the West versus responsibly managed and values-based medical care in his list of non-neoliberal countries.
Tim is not deterred by differences between his two select groups of countries, which affect viral respiratory disease propagation and deaths. Repeating myself, the said differences are in three areas:
1. Absolute-humidity-dependence of aerosol stability in air (viral transmission)
2. Care-homes institutional structure, and populations in care homes (hot spots)
3. Closed space aerosol-exhaust ventilation dependence on climate and air-conditioning (climate)
For Tim, these differences, and decades of the underlying science, are my “two part theory”. Tim appears to be oblivious to the logical deconstruction of his main thesis, which I have made.
Likewise, Tim ignores analyses based on the (national and regional) hard numbers of all-cause mortality by time, and prefers “the reported COVID-19 death toll of almost 1.2 million” unscientifically collected and tabulated by the WHO.
Coming back to the debate question: Were extraordinary government-imposed measures warranted? Would business as usual have been preferable?
By the measure of accumulated science and established practice prior to 2020, this was not a pandemic. It was a massive propaganda campaign and social interference, in the normal presence of viral respiratory disease.
Such propaganda campaigns are regularly engineered by Big Pharma and its Finance collaborators to continually invent epidemics, and this is allowed/enabled because there is globalization and geopolitical utility.The Great VIRAL Debate: Dr Rancourt’s Closing Statement