I admit a fair amount of the technical aspects of epidemiology is beyond me, but I try to read as much info from various sources to at least have a basic understanding of what's going on. It just seems to me the biggest issue with SARS-CoV-2 has been man's intervention. From the lab creation, to mitigation attempts, to trying to vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic, it seems like man's intervention has just clouded everything instead and made things impossible to predict.
It's the exact thing I'm concerned about with climate change. We have people who don't fully understand how all the drivers of climate change interact and to what degree, and they want to try to "fix" what's a naturally occurring force of nature. I fear a real climate catastrophe if we listen to these "not remotely as smart as they think they are" people.
You should be following Tony Heller. It's worse than your outline. Tony's shown (mostly gov't affiliated) scientists have and are manipulating the data on climate trends to produce signals which don't actually exist. These signals are used as part of the effort to justify control measures. He provides invaluable historical context to media claims of various "unprecedented"-ness and "worst/highest/hottest/driest/most-burned" claims of popular media stories on natural events. In short, it's all almost entirely lies (and the stuff that isn't, is of little residual significance). CO2 is still the target lever promoted for climate change mitigation, but Heller has and continues to show how this supposed correlation doesn't actually exist. Whether it's heat, hurricanes and severe storm events, sea-level rise, droughts, floods, or wildfire prevalence, Heller's show how the "hair on fire" stories don't line up with historical experience. It's a game about economic control.
He's still on YouTube, but cannot post everything he'd like there, due to Susan's edicts on content policy. He's on Rumble, newtube, and the web at realclimatescience.com
Also excellent on this subject is John Robson's Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN).
Oh, and I should also mention, if the CO2 correlation doesn't exist, even success in halting and reversing CO2 rise cannot be expected to produce the reduction in whatever "climate change" is supposed to mean to these people. (it's carefully made nebulous so that victories can be claimed when controls are successfully passed; so calls for more strident controls can be made so long as resistance persists)
So all that's left is to ask yourself what serious reductions in your personal CO2 footprint (to include the CO2 cost of the stuff you buy) would actually mean for your quality of life and cost of living. Life becomes more expensive, and with reduced flourishing, while enhancing gov't control and resources. An outcome Klaus Schwab of course would love!
I admit a fair amount of the technical aspects of epidemiology is beyond me, but I try to read as much info from various sources to at least have a basic understanding of what's going on. It just seems to me the biggest issue with SARS-CoV-2 has been man's intervention. From the lab creation, to mitigation attempts, to trying to vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic, it seems like man's intervention has just clouded everything instead and made things impossible to predict.
It's the exact thing I'm concerned about with climate change. We have people who don't fully understand how all the drivers of climate change interact and to what degree, and they want to try to "fix" what's a naturally occurring force of nature. I fear a real climate catastrophe if we listen to these "not remotely as smart as they think they are" people.
You should be following Tony Heller. It's worse than your outline. Tony's shown (mostly gov't affiliated) scientists have and are manipulating the data on climate trends to produce signals which don't actually exist. These signals are used as part of the effort to justify control measures. He provides invaluable historical context to media claims of various "unprecedented"-ness and "worst/highest/hottest/driest/most-burned" claims of popular media stories on natural events. In short, it's all almost entirely lies (and the stuff that isn't, is of little residual significance). CO2 is still the target lever promoted for climate change mitigation, but Heller has and continues to show how this supposed correlation doesn't actually exist. Whether it's heat, hurricanes and severe storm events, sea-level rise, droughts, floods, or wildfire prevalence, Heller's show how the "hair on fire" stories don't line up with historical experience. It's a game about economic control.
He's still on YouTube, but cannot post everything he'd like there, due to Susan's edicts on content policy. He's on Rumble, newtube, and the web at realclimatescience.com
Also excellent on this subject is John Robson's Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN).
https://www.youtube.com/c/CDN_ClimateDN
Case in point, Tony's latest on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmgVOoz-nJw
Oh, and I should also mention, if the CO2 correlation doesn't exist, even success in halting and reversing CO2 rise cannot be expected to produce the reduction in whatever "climate change" is supposed to mean to these people. (it's carefully made nebulous so that victories can be claimed when controls are successfully passed; so calls for more strident controls can be made so long as resistance persists)
So all that's left is to ask yourself what serious reductions in your personal CO2 footprint (to include the CO2 cost of the stuff you buy) would actually mean for your quality of life and cost of living. Life becomes more expensive, and with reduced flourishing, while enhancing gov't control and resources. An outcome Klaus Schwab of course would love!