By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Will the Church ever going to stop raping people?

Mr.Metralha said:

A church: I'm still to find out to this day what's that for.

Some for the pope. The world really needs an old man, dressed like an albino penguin, to read parts of the bible and to be the master of the obvious in his speeches?

A world without churches, is what we refer in the science fiction as an advanced civilization.

Im not sure if that was meant to be funny,but i almost burst out laughing,i love your "albino penguin" bit... :D



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
highwaystar101 said:
gurglesletch said:
highwaystar101 said:
gurglesletch said:

 Cough H1N1 Cough.

You should check into that cough to make sure you don't have swine flu.

I know this is off topic, but H1N1 was a serious issue. I'm usually the first person to spot out when the media is overblowing something, and I'm certainly not as influenced by the media as most. But I also like to think I can judge when something is overblown in the media, and swine flu was a serious case which warranted the media attention.

It wasn't a standard strain of flu, humans had no natural immunity to it, and so it could have spread like wildfire. A person with regular flu will infect one, maybe two, people. But when humans don't have a natural immunity it infects many of the people the infected person comes into contact with. That's why such a big deal was made about prevention. That's why schools closed down and businesses were strict on not letting flu ridden employees come to work, to limit the spread of infection. 

In a way, the media hype itself was one of the things that limited its spreading potential, because it made people aware of its existence and that it was dangerous.

I would have been sceptical myself, but I lived with three nurses at the time and they urged me to read up on it when we were talking about it one night, and what I found was that it really wasn't just regular flu, we had to act on it.

Here's thunderf00t explaining more, you really should watch this.

 

H1N1 wasn't very serious. It killed less people then the regular flu.

It only killed less people because we took such great precautions to prevent the spread. If we had sat around and done nothing it would have gone on to infect millions, if not billions. That's how a pandemic works when humans have no natural immunity. Do you understand what pandemic flu is and why it differs from seasonal flu?

The last large scale H1N1 flu pandemic was the 1918 flu pandemic where 500 million people got infected and 40 million died, which it potentially could have been if we didn't take action. It was very serious.

Old people had immunity to the Swine Flu. And the Swine flu was weaker than the regular flu. Didn't you see the original death reports in mexico and then a week later they were lowered by 80% or something.



gurglesletch said:
highwaystar101 said:

It only killed less people because we took such great precautions to prevent the spread. If we had sat around and done nothing it would have gone on to infect millions, if not billions. That's how a pandemic works when humans have no natural immunity. Do you understand what pandemic flu is and why it differs from seasonal flu?

The last large scale H1N1 flu pandemic was the 1918 flu pandemic where 500 million people got infected and 40 million died, which it potentially could have been if we didn't take action. It was very serious.

Old people had immunity to the Swine Flu. And the Swine flu was weaker than the regular flu. Didn't you see the original death reports in mexico and then a week later they were lowered by 80% or something.

Only some old people had an immunity to swine flu, and elderly people (65 ) only account for ~8% of the world's population. Hardly accounts for a large portion of the world's population, does it.

Swine flu did have a lower fatality rate than regular flu (As a percentage of those infected it is about 0.07% less than regular flu). But there was sufficient risk to be concerned about a spread of H1N1 that would infect people in the magnitude of hundreds of millions, far more than regular seasonal flu. Then what would the fatality rate be?

If the 2009 H1N1 pandemic affected the world on the magnitude of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic where 33% percent of the world was infected at a fatality rate of 0.03%, then that would result in an infection of 2.2Bn people and the deaths of 67.3 Mn people. These are pretty serious figures, and it has happened before. We were trying to avoid a repeat of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. It wouldn't matter if it was a third weaker than regular flu if it infects 200x more people.

This was the potential spread that we wanted to reduce the probability of. It had a low chance of occurring, but a high enough impact for us to take major action against it. With the preventative measures taken against swine flu we managed to reduce the likelihood of catastrophe on the scale of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic even further, and that action was certainly warranted. The deaths of nearly 70Mn people, however unlikely, isn't to be brushed off as "media hype".

By the way, when I found out about the story behind the story from my nurse housemates I decided to start researching from non-popular media sources and it became clear pretty quickly what the true situation was.



I swear that there are other things in Belgium besides the EU and paedophiles. :/
We got great food .... and ehm ... Great beer. .... and ehm Ye that's about it.

There's a tourist pamphlet for you:  visit Belgium, we got the best beer, great food, the EU and paedophiles.



 

draik said:

I swear that there are other things in Belgium besides the EU and paedophiles. :/
We got great food .... and ehm ... Great beer. .... and ehm Ye that's about it.

There's a tourist pamphlet for you:  visit Belgium, we got the best beer, great food, the EU and paedophiles.

Nah, don't worry. Austria takes the heat off Belgium when it comes to associating countries with paedophiles. The beer makes up for the EU, and people like your food. So generally people think positively of Belgium.



Around the Network

Were you ever going to stop raping the English language in your thread titles?

:-p



no



draik said:

I swear that there are other things in Belgium besides the EU and paedophiles. :/
We got great food .... and ehm ... Great beer. .... and ehm Ye that's about it.

There's a tourist pamphlet for you:  visit Belgium, we got the best beer, great food, the EU and paedophiles.

Hmm all I really know about Belgium is that the Walloons and the Flemish don't really get along as well as they should. Oh and that Brussels is a good example of why having a large Muslim population doesn't actually doom you to Sharia law.



highwaystar101 said:
gurglesletch said:
highwaystar101 said:

It only killed less people because we took such great precautions to prevent the spread. If we had sat around and done nothing it would have gone on to infect millions, if not billions. That's how a pandemic works when humans have no natural immunity. Do you understand what pandemic flu is and why it differs from seasonal flu?

The last large scale H1N1 flu pandemic was the 1918 flu pandemic where 500 million people got infected and 40 million died, which it potentially could have been if we didn't take action. It was very serious.

Old people had immunity to the Swine Flu. And the Swine flu was weaker than the regular flu. Didn't you see the original death reports in mexico and then a week later they were lowered by 80% or something.

Only some old people had an immunity to swine flu, and elderly people (65 ) only account for ~8% of the world's population. Hardly accounts for a large portion of the world's population, does it.

Swine flu did have a lower fatality rate than regular flu (As a percentage of those infected it is about 0.07% less than regular flu). But there was sufficient risk to be concerned about a spread of H1N1 that would infect people in the magnitude of hundreds of millions, far more than regular seasonal flu. Then what would the fatality rate be?

If the 2009 H1N1 pandemic affected the world on the magnitude of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic where 33% percent of the world was infected at a fatality rate of 0.03%, then that would result in an infection of 2.2Bn people and the deaths of 67.3 Mn people. These are pretty serious figures, and it has happened before. We were trying to avoid a repeat of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. It wouldn't matter if it was a third weaker than regular flu if it infects 200x more people.

This was the potential spread that we wanted to reduce the probability of. It had a low chance of occurring, but a high enough impact for us to take major action against it. With the preventative measures taken against swine flu we managed to reduce the likelihood of catastrophe on the scale of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic even further, and that action was certainly warranted. The deaths of nearly 70Mn people, however unlikely, isn't to be brushed off as "media hype".

By the way, when I found out about the story behind the story from my nurse housemates I decided to start researching from non-popular media sources and it became clear pretty quickly what the true situation was.

You can't change my opinion and i am going to stop arguing before i get a warning for trying to derail the thread or something.



In the name of poor taste, the subject of this thread calls for a Gregory Bros. musical remix: