Coronavirus Fears Thinning Attendance at Greta Thunberg Climate Rallies

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Fake problem meet real problem.

Climate change or coronavirus? ‘Pick your evil’, protesters say

Demonstrators led by Greta Thunberg say global governments have raised more alarm over virus than climate emergency.

Protesters at a rally led by climate activist Greta Thunberg on Friday denounced governments for taking urgent action against the coronavirus outbreak but failing to treat global warming as an emergency.

Organisers said some 4,000 people attended the event, fewer than expected, probably because of the weather and concerns about the spread of the virus in large crowds.

Andaga, 25, a marine biology student from Ghent, said some of her friends stayed away because of worries about the virus.

“I thought, OK, maybe I should carry hand sanitiser, but it was sold out everywhere … Yes, it was a concern of mine, but not enough to stop me from coming out and marching,” she said.

Read more:

Clearly a lot of Greta Thunberg’s followers are not as committed to climate action as Greta herself.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 2:36 am

Just imagine what it will be like, in a cold, wet dark November in Glasgow? That Covid-19 virus may well be mutating into Covid-20 by then. Being in a over heated Glasgow conference hall with 20,000 + others will test the urgency of the Climate Alarmists to destruction.
Don’t forget the hand sanitiser….

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 7, 2020 7:11 am

Large crowds (groups of 1000 or more) could face a Mandatory Quarantine Period of 14 days after the event to ensure COVID-19 does not spread.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 7, 2020 8:14 am

That’s like asking for the flu to not spread.

Hysteria is reacting irrationally to something that you can’t do anything about.

There’s a lot of hysteria about both ACC and CV.

Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 8:56 am : “Hysteria definition, an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.”

Whether you can do any about the issue is irrelevant.

The correct definition applies quite well though. Every time I see the bed-wetters weeping over a hypothetical non problem, I laugh a lot.

Bill Powers
Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 9:06 am

ACC reminds me that march madness is upon us in more ways than just Hysterical Climate/Covid Alarmism. I wonder if they will play the tournament with empty seats.

Has anybody been able to determine if this COVID 19 is more deadly than a normal cold/flu season? The Mid-Atlantic was brutal this past holiday season,but they didn’t cancel the holiday for fear of spread. Take a sprinkling of disease and add the media to really get you revved up to infinity and beyond.

Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 9:08 am

In France seasonal flu kills on average 9000 people per year.

For some reason the current 9 deaths and 600 cases is some kind of national emergency.

US Congress has just authorised 8.3bn. Mostly going to Big Pharma I presume. All sides hoping for some kind consideration for their coming election campaigns.

Just like climate, no alarms, no money.

Bryan A
Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 10:11 am

Generally the Flu will have a mortality rate of around 0.6% – 0.8% of infected people.
Mild flu years see mortality rates at 0.1%
The Spanish Flu of 1918 had a mortality rate of 10% – 20% though the infected were treated differently than would be today.

Currently there are
105,479 cases total
58,354 recovered and
3,555 deaths
COVID-19 appears to have a mortality rate between 3% – 6%
And is non-discriminate on who it takes young, old, hale, infirm doesn’t matter

So … much worse than the bad flu years though not as bad as the Spanish Flu

Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 10:37 am

“Has anybody been able to determine if this COVID 19 is more deadly than a normal cold/flu season?”

Mortality in China has been on the order of 3%, i. e. about 10-20 times higher than for ordinary influenza and probably even a bit higher than for the spanish flu of 1918. Mortality in Italy is currently even higher.

Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 11:20 am

“And is non-discriminate on who it takes young, old, hale, infirm doesn’t matter”

While that may be pedantically true, it’s not really true. The vast majority of deaths so far are people who are old and/or have other conditions that make them particularly vulnerable. Unless things have changed in the last couple of days, not a single child has died from it while thousands of over-60s have.

Common viral pneumonia is particularly dangerous for over-60s smokers with weak immune systems, so this probably is, too. Which is why the spread in nursing homes is so disastrous; the death rate could be over 20% among those infected there.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 1:15 pm

“And is non-discriminate on who it takes young, old, hale, infirm doesn’t matter”

This is categorically and demonstrably false.
Considering this is a response to a comment about people overreacting, spreading bad info, and being hysterical…I find this remark somewhere between ironic and laughable.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 1:23 pm

Without any determination of what percentage of people are getting mild illness with few or absent symptoms, any estimates of a CFR at this time are pointless unless one has some interest in being an alarmist.
There is very little reason to minimize or exaggerate what is known in such a case and in such a time as this.
The truth is what is important, not how bad something can be made to sound, or how blithe one can be while others are suffering, and there is real damage being done to the economy, and perhaps all leading to unfortunate outcomes, financially, politically, and otherwise, for a huge number of people.

I am way past expecting everyone to stick to facts however, or even what can be shown to be likely, let alone to speak in measured tones and with appropriate disclaimers and qualifications to opinions and speculative or dubious information and/or opinions.

But I am not exactly over getting irritated by it either.
So expect to be disagreed with, corrected, contradicted, or called out, as needed and as others see fit, if one feels the need to speak rashly or to spread misinformation.

Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 5:45 pm

Paranoia isn’t pretty. If you wished, you could check out the bill and see where the money is earmarked to go.

Do you honestly believe that the only people who’s expenses are going to go up over this is big Pharma?

Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 5:47 pm

Bryan A, where did you get the data to support your claim that covid-19 hits everyone?
I was looking at a chart this morning that showed that close to 80% of deaths occur in those 80 and over.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David
March 7, 2020 7:18 pm

Yes, that is my understanding as well, Mark.
And perhaps even more surprising or unusual, something like zero children and very few school age kids or young adults have even gotten a bad case of the symptoms.
Not at all like a regular cold or flu.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 3:04 am

By then either we will be in clear so no risk, or it will be the Anthropocentric Virus Armageddon, so it will not happen.
I’ve given up and wash my hands of it all /sarc

Reply to  Vuk
March 7, 2020 11:22 am

Actually, by then it may just be coming back after going on vacation for the summer.

SARS didn’t do well in hot weather, so there’s a good chance this won’t either. But SARS was controlled enough that it died out, whereas this will probably be with us for years to come thanks to governments refusing to shut the borders when it could have been contained in China.

Reply to  MarkG
March 7, 2020 1:17 pm

Get ready for the Anthropocentric Virus Armageddon

Reply to  Vuk
March 7, 2020 1:43 pm

Could become a great musical some day with a name like that.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 4:22 am

Just learned, the “hand sanitizer” does not remove the virus at all.
It is efficient against bacteria only.
The virus survives it the mucus.
You have to wash your hands thoroughly, not “sanitize” them.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Alex
March 7, 2020 5:10 am

Alex: They work if they are 70% alcohol.

Reply to  Harry Davidson
March 7, 2020 5:47 am

Don´t waste the product.
That one goes inside.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Alex
March 7, 2020 7:37 am

70% (140 proof) is undrinkable. That is why Vodka is usually bottled at 40%. Absinthe is usually sold at 65%, but is customarily diluted 5::1.

Reply to  Alex
March 7, 2020 9:54 am

Clearly Walter has never dabbled in the wonderful world of overproof (151) rum.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alex
March 7, 2020 5:20 am

I think sanitizers are overrated. They also dry out your hands.

Soap and water will do just as good a job. Wash your hands after touching something that might have been touched by another. Avoid touching your face until you have washed outside influences off your hands.

My grandmother used to wash off her store-bought cans and jars before she would even open them. My young self thought it rather odd at the time but maybe she knew something I didn’t know.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2020 7:58 am

I believe the reason is warehouses of old used to be rat runs. The rats would pee and poo everywhere, so your granny was correct.

I still wipe the cans.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
March 7, 2020 11:31 am

Yes, I think something like that was probably what motivated her.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2020 2:24 pm

Sanitizers were originally developed and intended for situations where a person does not have access to a place to wash hands with soap and water.
And as with anything, the effectiveness is directly related to the methodology used and the adherence to such common sense procedures as preventing cross contamination and/or immediate recontamination.
A reading of the applicable literatures makes it fairly clear that such things as alcohol used as a sanitizer are relatively ineffective and possibly worthless if they are applied to surfaces or hands that are dirty or greasy, etc.
IOW…they work on clean surfaces and clean hands to some degree, but not on dirty ones.
And the degree to which they work is dependent on many factors…such as the specific organism or type of organism being targeted, the amount of time they are left in contact with the surface, the degree of coverage of the application, the temperature and moisture/humidity levels, and the concentration of the active ingredients as well as any adjuvants or complimentary ingredients.
Many of the viruses (and bacteria and other types or organisms) that cause disease in humans are quickly degraded/inactivated outside of the specific conditions in which they thrive.
IOW…they do not survive for long outside their hosts.
This degradation may be immediate, rapid, very slow, gradual, or may not occur to any significant degree over a particular span of time.

Some viruses degrade more quickly when it is warm than when it is cool or cold. Some survive more readily when it is humid or moist, and some the opposite is true…they survive better if I is dry/humidity is low.
So while cool and dry may allow some viruses to survive on certain surfaces, for others cool and dry will inactivate them rapidly.
The same is true for warm and moist conditions.
Also, all surface are not equal when it comes to survival.
Many smooth metal surfaces catalyze chemical reactions and quickly inactivate viruses.
Copper and silver are notable for this property, and are even infused into some sports gear and clothing and therapeutic devices for the specific purpose of killing microorganisms.
Also, our skin contains organic acids that inactivate many viruses very quickly. Ones that can survive on a doorknob for hours to a few days may only survive on skin for a few minutes to an hour.
Particles of dirt are known to harbor large numbers of microorganisms, and whole communities of them may live on small particles of organic matter.
Virions are very small, and it generally takes hundreds of thousands to millions of them being introduced into the body at one time to cause an infection.
The specific quantity varies from person to person and from organism to organism, much as it does for toxins that might kill someone. Statistical ranges must be employed to describe how much of a poison will kill someone, and a commonly used number is what is called the LD-50…the amount of a toxin that is lethal to 50% or subjects. A similar measurement is used to describe what is called the minimal infective dose for an infectious organism.

I am not sure what is meant by “The virus survives it (sic?) the mucus”, and I suspect it is a type and should say “…in the mucus…”, or what this has to do with hand sanitizer.
As far as I know, there is no mucous in hand sanitizer products.
But mucous is an important component of several of the various layers of defense our bodies have to foreign substances and organisms.
Mucous contains several components and ways in which it will inactive, encapsulate, drown or caused to be secreted, things like viruses.
Among other components, mucous contains inorganic salts, antimicrobial enzymes, immunoglobulins (antibodies), glycoproteins, and mucins, all of which can kill or inactivate a virus or render them unable to cause infection prior to being digested or excreted.
The way sanitizers are directed to be used…you rub them on your hands and let them dry.
So they will not remove anything, when used as directed. If they are applied to the hands and them wiped off with a towel or cloth, they are not being used as intended and may have no effect at all. One way they work is by causing an increasing concentration of the certain of the components to be present as the stuff evaporates, as well as taking long enough to evaporate to be shown to be long enough to kill a percentage of whatever it is they might kill.
But I suspect very few people read the directions on such products, let alone follow them or understand what they are good for and what they will NOT do, even when used as directed.

In general though, viruses are very delicate and easily killed. They work they way they do by being present in vast profusion, and by continuous transmittance from one host to another.
Generally speaking.
For most of them it is unclear at best what the significance is of survival times on various surfaces.
Some studies have been for the purpose of inducing conditions that will allow the survival of a virus on a surface (infectious organisms on a is called a fomite). They start out with some extreme concentration of something and see how long it is until the last of them are dead.
What is much more clear is that generally speaking viruses that cause disease survive for a limited time on most objects outside of the body and outside of the host cells they infect.
And it is much more clear that hand washing, particularly if it is done correctly and for long enough, is the best way known for a person to avoid getting sick when a contagious disease is present, and that it works best in conjunction with avoidance of touching the face.
Almost nothing will kill all organisms from any particular surface.
Almost no one will ever be successful at never ever touching their face.
No one will even avoid being exposed to virions.
But none of those things are required to prevent instances of disease in a particular person.
Anything that creates a more hostile environment for a virus will lower survival time for them on any surface, with some methods being clearly more effective than others at killing or removing them.
Soap and water decreases friction and surface tension, and the running action of the water rinses particles down the drain or away from the skin by mechanical action. Wiping does much the same thing.
Repeated instances of doing either remove successively more of whatever is present.
Soap and heat (very hot water is far better at killing viruses than cold water) can also inactivate virions directly by degrading or denaturing the proteins, as well as increasing the degree to which particle may be able to adhere to a surface.

In short, anything that is inhospitable to the buggers is better then nothing…but we should understand what we are doing when we wash or use a sanitizer, and how they are intended to work to begin with.
We need to know what they do, and what they do not do.
Infection is a numbers game.
Less virus particles is better than more of them.

Reply to  Alex
March 7, 2020 5:51 am

Wow someone actually looked it up, it was a little secret so we could laugh at all the idiots stockpiling it.

Reply to  Alex
March 7, 2020 6:10 am

Colloidal silver products like Theraworx Protect would probably work.

michael hart
Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 6:58 am

For someone claiming to study marine biology, that person needs more than a hand sanitiser. They need a brain sanitiser.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 7:16 am

Here’s the plan:

Show up at a climate rally…
Start hacking and coughing loudly, and between coughs, loudly gasp “China cruise ship! … China cruise ship!”
Cough into your hands and start pawing at people as you rock back and forth, obviously short of breath and in respiratory distress.
Look wildly at the sky and shout “Beware the dancing rats! Beware the dancing rats!” Then stagger to a safe spot and collapse.

Don’t worry about getting trampled – everyone will be running away from you. 🙂

/sarc off

March 7, 2020 7:59 am

Sounds like you’ve done that one before, Allan 😉

Reply to  Redge
March 7, 2020 10:22 am

I got the idea from one of my Islamic friends – he has a wicked sense of humor – he used it back in 2012 to get extra room at a crowded mosque. He also broadcast that MERS was an STD and they had to quarantine the camels.

“MERS 2012: 779 deaths from 2229 total infections, mortality 35.5%. Not transmissible prior to symptom onset. Bat corona via live camel intermediate to humans in a Saudi Arabian camel market.”

March 7, 2020 8:08 am

….. and when you get back home with a cough and a sneeze you’l need to self isolate, hence not aloud to do any of the household chores.
Ah, but what about raised temperature? No problem just few bites of a fresh potato will do the job and do no harm and high in vitamin C.

Reply to  Vuk
March 7, 2020 8:19 am

typo ‘allowed’, …. or even say aloud you should not do any of the household chores.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 9:56 am

hmmm…I’ve never see hand sanitiser that didn’t come in plastic.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 7, 2020 2:27 pm

The governments she is complaining about are much more likely to treat the flu than they are climate change because they know the truth. The truth is that the flu even at 3% death rate (average), is much more likely to kill you than global warming.

Reply to  Rod Evans
March 9, 2020 4:51 pm

Hey, look on the bright side! It’s reducing carbon emissions big time. Skies are clearing all over the world. Much more effective than renewables.

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
March 7, 2020 3:21 am

Wow. So there is something good coming from covid19.

March 7, 2020 3:28 am

The pathogen is not nearly as scary as peoples’ responses to it are based on so little good information.

Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 4:06 am

not nearly as scary” ……. is correct.

The Coronavirus “fearmongering” …… is much ado about nothing out of the ordinary, to wit:

Estimated Range of Annual Burden of (non-Coronavirus) Flu in the U.S. since 2010

Each year CDC estimates the burden of influenza in the U.S.

CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, …. between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations …. and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.

Read more @

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 7, 2020 5:47 am

That 3.4% number might be credible if some form of an adequate surveillance system had been operational before WuFlu had already spread across the globe. Now we have no way of distinguishing between the rate of its spread from point of origin and the rate of its detection. That number will drop significantly IMO as testing expands, and won’t even include the numerous people who recovered or had asymptomatic infection, and who now have antibodies to the virus, but not the virus itself.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 7, 2020 7:30 am

We will have to wait to know true mortality rate. Wait a couple of years and then look at total people dead. It is hard right now to calculate because we are not sure how many people had the virus.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 7, 2020 3:11 pm

Icisil and Stevek are correct, IMO.
Is it virtually certain that many people who are infected never know it.
We know this by many means of inference, not the least of which is that most of the cases now turning up are in people who had no contact with anyone known to have the virus.
Also few if any children or even young adults have been shown to get the disease, but they are surely being exposed to and contracting the virus and subsequently spreading it.
There are several instances of this known to have occurred, and this is just getting started.
Comparisons to a disease that has been in widespread circulation all over the world for all of time makes zero sense, IMO.
The incidence of this disease was zero several months ago.
Likewise projections based on additive or multiplicative rates of transmission make no sense…diseases spread by geometric progression in populations with no resistance and widespread interlinked groups of contacts.
If in five years flu is still implicated in more deaths, great (I guess it is great, \but…?).
But it seems very possible in five years far fewer numbers will be dying with flu* in five years if this new disease becomes widespread and stays with us.
I have noted prior to this outbreak that the overall death rate does not change much over time when there is a particularly bad flu season, or when some other respiratory disease is spiking.
For one thing, diseases such as flu kill mostly people who are one illness away from death already.
Another factor is, infection with one virus confers a degree of immunity to another similar virus, and even to many dissimilar viruses, and even confers (documented in the case of mice infected with herpesvirus being immune to infection with bubonic plague bacteria) resistance to infection by bacteria and, one might suppose, other types of infectious organisms.

The reasons for this are fairly straightforward and may be a type of hormesis: Once an infection is present in our body, our immune system is placed on high alert and various types of immune cells and chemicals are present in an increased concentration.

So it may be the case that a lot of elderly people and especially those with other types of health conditions will see a period of an increased death rate.
But it is also possible that over the longer time frames, it will barely be noticeable, except perhaps by a temporarily decreasing average longevity, rather than the long period of increasing longevity we have been seeing in recent decades.

*It should be noted that most of the people who die with flu are dying WITH flu…not necessarily OF flu, and also that the CDC and many other health authorities do not sperate out deaths from flu from those caused by other causes of pneumonia…the stat on flu they give is actually “Pneumonia and Influenza”.
See here:
comment image

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 7, 2020 5:41 am

In a year or two you will have both, and since COVID-19 has higher mortality than flu it is expected that both hospitalisations and mortality will more than double. It is not what is happening now or in few months but what will happen in years to come if virus becomes as common as influenza.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 5:21 am

Really? Are you sure yourself that you know what you are talking about?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 7, 2020 6:08 am

It’s like climate science: always the dire predictions of worldwide doom and catastrophe, but never the actualization of such. Can you point to a single instance where the “experts” have gotten it right about a 1918-like worldwide pandemic? The 1918 pandemic itself doesn’t count because 1) they didn’t predict it, and 2) its mortality data are too polluted with iatrogenic etiologies, i.e., toxic medical treatments (i.e., aspirin poisoning) and life-threatening misdiagnoses (e.g., misdiagnosing TB as viral pneumonia can have lethal consequences) to honestly attribute its huge mortality to a virus.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 9:16 am

I have considerably more confidence in the expertise of a virologist like Peter Piot who worked to contain ebola, than you, apparently.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 7, 2020 10:09 am

I have confidence in virologists who actually follow Koch’s postulates, rather than virologists who have abandoned such to believe in things like slow viruses. An accomplished virologist once said there are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.

Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 6:56 am

But . . ! Obviously, little Greta and friends’ attempt to spook the herd off a cliff with “climate crisis” wasn’t working, so the UN (WHO) had to come up with a more clear-and-present boogeyman; voila! COVID-19!

Both are all about “getting” Trump.

Read Sheryl Atkisson’s book “The Smear,” and you’ll never believe a damn thing you read in the MSM ever again.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 7, 2020 7:16 am

I think she was the one who exposed the CDC for lying about SARS and revealed via state health dept data that most of the people diagnosed with SARS tested negative for the virus.

Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 7:44 am

Yep, that’s her, but it was swine flu, not SARS.

Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 7:50 am

When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was publicizing a supposed swine epidemic in 2009, I got a tip from two government health insiders.

It led me to ask CDC for the actual lab test results for American patients believed to have contracted swine flu.

CDC declined to provide the information on a timely basis, even though it was at their fingertips and belongs to the public.

So I went to each of the 50 states, which had provided the lab test results to CDC, and obtained the information that way.

The results were shocking. Almost none of the “swine flu” patients had swine flu.

Reply to  icisil
March 7, 2020 8:14 am

icisil – March 7, 2020 at 7:50 am

The results were shocking. Almost none of the “swine flu” patients had swine flu.

That doesn’t surprise me any.

I’m sure the same would be true if you checked out how many people actually died from “cigarette smoke” related cancers.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  icisil
March 10, 2020 9:46 am

Then you should also look into how they test for HIV. That epidemic appears to be also almost entirely made up.

March 7, 2020 3:30 am

maybe govts acting on a real concern NOT a furphy?
poor kid feeling the lack of an audience…
see she was saying double what the cops counted crowds at in the uk rallies too.

rather irresponsible to be encouragin mass crowds at this time
shame shame shame;-)

Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 7, 2020 4:21 am

That’s right. How dare she.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 7, 2020 4:26 pm

Well, look at it this way…if she had not, this story would have never appeared here, and I might have never learnt the word “furphy”.
So there is that.
Now I have to go read up on how to tell a furphy from a tall tale or a shaggy dog story.
Although I think I am already clear enough on that last bit.

March 7, 2020 3:37 am

Demonstrators led by Greta Thunberg say global governments have raised more alarm over virus than climate emergency.

Of course, they know which one is the real threat.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 7, 2020 3:52 am

Yep. There is no climate “emergency”. We still can’t make wine in York as the Romans did.
They’re Gretins.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 7, 2020 6:38 am

Last week in Italy, or was it Germany, there were a few hours in a small village where there came red wine out of the water tap. At a local winery they made a mistake with with the valves. From the video I saw, the “red wine” looked very pale though.

Good accidents happen.

Rhys Jaggar
March 7, 2020 3:51 am

This is no different to what happened in the US after 9/11. Business shut down for about a month and was slow for a few months after. The world went on and the US got back to normal.

CoVid19 is just a South Sea Bubble-style scare. Media claptrap, overblown dangers, never comparing this non-epidemic to flu deaths every single year etc etc.

What I want banned are right-on media bullshitters from travelling anywhere in 2020, especially not to the Olympics. I want all the BBC coverage from a studio in Salford, I want every BBC employee to have to cycle to work and never to use a car again and I want all the BBC budget for the Olympics given to those who have paid for their actual tickets to Tokyo.

Amazing how quickly you can shut the BBC up by taking away their privileges as an example to set on ‘containing Coronavirus’ and ‘addressing climate chaos’.

Anyone seeing a BBC journalist flying should confront them and order them to go home and self-isolate.

Anyone catching a BBC green nutcase driving should order them to sell their car forthwith.

Bicycles is all that lot can use from now on…..oh, and the Tube and buses in London, the trams in Manchester and Sheffield and they can commute by train if necessary. But only to their local BBC studio. No gallivanting from London all over the country for that lot………

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 7, 2020 1:41 pm

After 9/11 I was sitting by the roadside painting one of my gates, and the neighbor lady comes flapping down the road, asking me positively wall-eyed where she can buy a gas mask.

I had to explain to her the elementary physics of historic gas use in war, that it’s heavier than air and can only be deployed effectively in confined areas. Suburbia and she didn’t have much to worry about. . .

This is the failure to teach history properly in our schools. Easier to terrify the easily-spooked masses.

Malcolm andrew bryer
Reply to  Goldrider
March 7, 2020 9:59 pm

Right . We are in this present state of mass hysteria precisely because we no longer teach history to our children. The result is they are soft targets for every conman, every mad theory that comes along. Chicken Lickens, all of them.

Craig from Oz
March 7, 2020 4:24 am

“…fewer than expected, probably because of the weather and concerns about the spread of the virus”

The weather…

Good thing it wasn’t The Climate then. That puppy can CHANGE!

March 7, 2020 4:34 am

“Organisers said some 4,000 people attended the event, fewer than expected, probably because of the weather and concerns about the spread of the virus in large crowds.

Typical progressive leftists conclusions from zero research and near zero evidence.

“Andaga, 25, a marine biology student from Ghent, said some of her friends stayed away because of worries about the virus.
“I thought, OK, maybe I should carry hand sanitiser, but it was sold out everywhere … Yes, it was a concern of mine, but not enough to stop me from coming out and marching,” she said.”

Notice the focus on designated “hand sanitizer”!?
Bottles of alcohol are “hand sanitizers”.
As are bottles of bleach in water; or ammonia in water. (Do not mix bleach and ammonia!)

If isopropyl is sold out, buy bourbon, rye, Canadian Whiskey, vodka, gin or tequila! All of which will work just fine and could start a new fragrance fad.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ATheoK
March 7, 2020 6:22 am

Lemon and lime juice also have disinfection properties.
That’s why a certain ex-barmaid advises people to put lime in their Coronas.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 7, 2020 6:30 am

And limes are Green!

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 8, 2020 4:07 am

So are Watermelons. 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ATheoK
March 7, 2020 7:24 pm

Or you could decide to get something that will surely work, is inexpensive, and has residual action.
In that case you would buy a small bottle of povidone iodine, dilute someone into a squeeze bottle, and rinse hands with it before and after going outside.
Take it along to wipe surface like shopping cart handles.
Or just do not worry about it unless you are very old and in poor health to begin with.

Ian E
March 7, 2020 4:50 am

“Clearly a lot of Greta Thunberg’s followers are not as committed to climate action as Greta herself.”

Yes – but they should ALL be committed!

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Ian E
March 7, 2020 11:10 am

One should not write English, particularly “Olde English” unless one does not want others to understand.

Tom Abbott
March 7, 2020 5:12 am

From the article: Protesters at a rally led by climate activist Greta Thunberg on Friday denounced governments for taking urgent action against the coronavirus outbreak but failing to treat global warming as an emergency.”

Do you know of anyone who has dropped dead from [human-caused] global warming? Let me answer for you: No, not one person has dropped dead from human-caused global warming, nor are any likely to do so. Human-caused global warming is not an emergency it is a delusion fostered by dishonest/credulous people with no basis in fact.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2020 5:48 am

….. but lot of people every winter die from cold since they can not afford to keep their houses to comfortable temperature.
Warmth is beneficial, extreme cold kills !

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 7, 2020 8:20 am

Nobody has dropped dead from global warming, but 10’s of thousands have dropped dead due to policies put in place to “fight” global warming.

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 7, 2020 6:03 am

COP26 could be interesting, a real life changer.

March 7, 2020 6:57 am

Greta’s star is losing its lustre. In a few months she will join Summer Glau as an occasional person of bygone interest for morning TV talk show hosts.

Richard Hart
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 7, 2020 11:34 am

And that, frankly, is a travesty. For Summer, not Greta.

J Mac
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 7, 2020 12:24 pm

Agree, DMacKenzie!
Perhaps it is the obnoxious and overbearing fiction spewed by reGretable that is losing appeal, rather than fear of the latest viral flu mutation? The shiny new ‘useful tool’ has been used and now is wearing thin… Next!

Coeur de Lion
March 7, 2020 7:30 am

I’m really looking forward to COP26. It’s gonna be just like 24 and 25 but in UK with the BBC hyping it up and ending with feeble excuses for failure. Btw do get onto the Green Climate Fund website and check out the chaos. I noted a lot of programmes that have received approval but no ‘implementation’. They all look like tiny tiny little improvements to local conditions that a normal Aid programme would have done anyway. It’s run from South Korea. The salaries are on line as well.

Carl Friis-Hansen
March 7, 2020 7:35 am

Has Sweden enough income for finance the Greta Thunberg protocol?
I ask because Sweden has a bit of coal export.
Exports in Sweden increased to 128500 SEK million in January from 117100 SEK million in December of 2019. (Divide by 10 to the dollar)

This past week Greta’s government of Sweden decided to ban all coal export from 2021, in honor of the Climate Change. How would Swedish government dare going against her majisty Greta Thunberg’s notion of using prehistoric bio-fuel.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
March 7, 2020 4:57 pm

The people who dig it up and use it in the future will no doubt be grateful they left it in the ground in 2021.

March 7, 2020 7:46 am

Little virus taking down the big virus, huh?

March 7, 2020 7:52 am

Covid-19 is going to get rid of 65/70 + olds. In the west they owe property and have pensions, so their younger offspring and pension funds are beneficiaries. In China due to their disastrous one child policy they have too many old people who need looking after and too few young and productive people required by the rapidly growing Chinese economy. The Earth population will be young, productive and prosperous. Designer clothes, designer drugs, designer virus, what’s not to like ?

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Vuk
March 7, 2020 8:48 am
March 7, 2020 8:35 am

Out of a German newspaper:

In the Kölner Stadtanzeiger of 7.3.2020 the well-known moderator and book author Jürgen Domian writes an open letter to Greta Thunberg under the headline

“As for me – Domian writes to Greta Thunberg
Get rid of your halo

Why Greta Thunberg and her Fridays for Future friends from the middle and upper class are getting on my nerves.

Dear Greta,

as is customary in Sweden, I’ll simply be on familiar terms with you. Since a few years now you speak clear words to us and don’t hold back with criticism. Just as I will do it now also.

One thing first: I too am a great friend of nature and am basically – although not party political – deeply green. In Cologne I fight for every tree, and the fact that the glaciers are melting worldwide hurts my soul.

But now to you. I have hesitated for a long time, talked to myself, and now I’m sitting here and I can’t help it. I must tell you that you are getting on my nerves quite a bit in the meantime. There is hardly a week in which you do not appear somewhere and reproach someone with a morally angry face. This week it was Ursula von der Leyen and the EU Commission’s turn. So it is getting harder and harder for me to take you and your movement “Fridays for Future” seriously.
The world climate is not being saved in Germany or Sweden. We are insignificant

I’m sure you’re a nice girl and you’ve certainly got your heart in the right place. But I can’t judge at all whether all the hype around you is not just a brilliant production of quite clever PR managers who earn a lot of money with you and the “Greta brand”.

In the beginning I was still impressed, but in the course of time I couldn’t avoid the impression that you recite memorized answers or perform texts formulated by others in front of the press. This was also the case with your appearance before the UN Climate Change Conference 2019 in New York. I sat in front of the television and had to shake my head a few times – out of sheer shame. Your behaviour was so hysterical that I could hardly stand it. And the things you said there! Example: “How dare you, you stole my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”

Dear Greta, I don’t think anyone stole your childhood from you. Like your whole generation in the wealthy countries, you had the best childhood in living memory. There was never before so much freedom and prosperity as for you. In addition, your generation, and especially your Fridays for Future friends from the middle and upper classes, contribute significantly to the misery you so loudly denounced. You jet to Burning Man in Nevada, do internships in Singapore and Johannesburg, and when a star DJ hangs up in Madrid, you just fly there for an evening. No youth has ever been so globalized before.

By the way, have you read what James Lovelock, one of the most important pioneers of the environmental movement, says about Fridays-for-Future? “They’re just students who have too much time on their hands and go out in the streets to raise an issue.” I wouldn’t be so hard on you. Your cause is my cause too. But I find you too indifferent, too reproachful, too crude in your reasoning.

Why don’t you, Greta, go where it really stinks? For example to Belchatow in Poland, to the largest lignite power plant in the world? It produces more greenhouse gases than Slovakia or Ireland. Go to Brazil, Russia, China or India! The world climate is not being saved in Germany or Sweden. We are basically completely insignificant.

Nevertheless, we should of course set an example. And we are far from reaching our goal. Let’s work on it together! But please let people keep their SUVs and their holiday trips by plane! Let us rather fight together for a speed of 130 km/h on German motorways, 30 km/h in the city centres and a massive expansion of the rail network.

Don’t spread fear and panic every time you perform! Otherwise you shouldn’t be surprised that more and more people turn away from you. Don’t constantly suggest guilt and a guilty conscience! Better look into your own country! Sweden covers 40 percent of its energy needs with nuclear power. Iron ore mining in Lapland destroys gigantic natural resources. It is a picture of horror, and my heart bleeds every time I pass by there on my trips to Scandinavia.
But in the end I extend my hand to you. I know from the gay and women’s movement that you often have to be shrill, annoying, loud, pushy and sometimes populist to be heard. But then you have to be prepared to endure the counter-reactions. And above all, you must not present and understand yourself as infallible. What I want to say with this: please get rid of your halo! Naturally environmentally friendly. Then we would be a big step further and I could find you really likeable again.


Your J. Domian (signature)”

Translated with (free version)

German source

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2020 4:54 pm

Wow…so even people on her side in all of this cannot stand her arrogance, pomposity, fake indignity, shrill alarmism, and holier-than-thou prepared speeches?
Hardly surprising, I think.
For one think, they are all in the game for, among other purposes, the attention it brings them…and she is stealing a lot of the thunder and the airtime.
And then squandering it, as he correctly points out.
But he is no less misguided and, in fact, flat out wrong about most of what he says he believes.
Everyone ought to be able to get behind a spirit and a commitment to using resources efficiently and wisely.
But this writer has himself infused his own predilections and carved out conveniences and indulgences, such as when he defends SUVs but bitches and moans about an iron mine. Where exactly does he feel is the proper place to mine the raw materials for his SUVs, his planes, his railroad tracks, and his precious trains?
Is he a mining expert? Does he have some reason for thinking that is not a good place to mine that material, other than the fact that he has to drive past it and see it for himself?
And how can extracting and making use of natural resources be “destroying them”?
If they are not dug out of the ground and used, they are not resources, but just rocks.
And how dare he make a fuss about kids travelling to events they find enjoyable, but defend his own flying as merely Holiday vacations that no one ought to criticize?
How on Earth is it a rational argument to encourage someone to travel to look at a dirty power plant in some distant country, and then also be all upset about Sweden using the cleanest method ever invented for creating power for 40% of it’s needs, let alone criticize flying somewhere for a job or some recreation or entertainment?
Talk about crude reasoning!
How is it a disaster when people dig rocks up to make them into useful products, but scenic splendor when a glacier carves a beautiful mountain into useless pebbles and makes it impossible to traverse the area, or use the water locked up as ice for hundreds of years?
Personally, I think anyone who cries about their wounded soul over some slightly less frigidly frozen wastelands is mentally ill and dreadfully miseducated.

March 7, 2020 9:07 am

Given that the climate change hoax began essentially in China by Maurice Strong and the coronavirus began in China, that is where all climate change conferences should be held. Wuhan would be a great place.

March 7, 2020 9:15 am

Eric, please, enough of this ignorant child. I only read the articles to see what the rest of us think about her in the “replies”. I loved that letter from the Swedish guy but really, isn’t enough already too much?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael
March 7, 2020 4:18 pm

The purpose for your whiny comment is unclear.
And this sentence, “I loved that letter from the Swedish guy but really, isn’t enough already too much?” makes one wonder, did you pay for your miseducation, or were you just showing up and not paying attention for free?

Do you have anything to say that is helpful, informative, interesting,or funny?
And, at the very least, are you ever gonna thrill us with one of those properly written comments, in grammatically perfect English, that includes all due attention to proper compositional structure, that you are famous for?

For those who do not know me: /sarc off.

March 7, 2020 10:40 am

It must be maddening for Gretins to have their doomsday spotlight overtaken by another, unexpected doomsday scare. Unless they could claim that AGW caused the COVID19 as well…

Reply to  maarten
March 7, 2020 11:24 am

No planes, little spread of Wuhan Flu outside China.


They will, of course, soon be telling us that we need a massive global bureaucracy and global taxes to prevent further outbreaks like this, when globalism is the very reason it happened.

Nicholas McGinley
March 7, 2020 1:05 pm

I wrote this a short time ago for a FB post:
This story details how, at this point, nearly 3000 people in NYC alone are under quarantine orders.
I do not know how strong the laws are for such things, but considering that even violent criminals are released after being arrested there, there is little reason to suppose all, or even perhaps most, of those people will feel compelled to honor the order and stay inside and away from other people.
And quarantine is not isolation.
People under quarantine typically are restricted to their home or some other assigned for purpose location.
So others are present. After all, no one can be expected to live inside with no outside support for two weeks, even if they are not sick. People need to eat and attend to various needs and such…medications, necessary household and hygienic supplies, etc.
I have already read of at least one person who was under quarantine in a hospital, but snuck out and is now on the loose and no one knows where that person is.
But wherever they are, if that person was sick enough to be in a hospital, it is for sure they are contagious and are now spreading the virus around.
I am certain the virus is now widespread throughout the country, and throughout the world.
Many people, including almost all young people, have mild or absent symptoms but are nonetheless able to spread the virus and are actively doing so and have been for weeks if not months.
We are only finding out about hotspots when someone who is predisposed to become seriously ill seeks medical attention.
In every case in which that has happened, follow up testing of contacts of that person have revealed some number of infected but asymptomatic individuals, and in some cases many of them.
The math gets out of hand quickly in such situations.
No one tries to quarantine people with certain illnesses because it is pointless…they are too widespread and far too contagious to contain them that way.
For some ailments it is simply unmanageable and impractical to take such measures to prevent it’s spread.
I am certain this is one of those illnesses, and quarantine is pointless and will not work, with the possible exception of keeping everyone from getting it at once and overwhelming supplies and hospitals.
Slower spread will delay the time of such a large number with serious illness who need hospitalization, and allow supplies to be increased, early patients to clear beds, and treatments to pass through testing and trials.
At this point the best hope for a treatment that will be available anytime soon are some antivirals developed with other diseases in mind, but have broad antiviral activity and are showing to be effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus (This is the name given to the virus that causes the disease, which is called COVID-19. If this seems confusing, think of how the HIV virus causes the disease called AIDS.)
Gilead has the most promising drug to date which may be a valuable treatment, in a drug called remdesivir, which was developed to fight the Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever viruses.
Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue prodrug (A prodrug is a drug which is converted into an active form of the drug once it is inside the body. The nucleotide that remdesivir is an analogue of is adenosine, which is itself a molecule consisting of the nucleoside adenine attached to a phosphate group. Adenosine is a molecule which is present in every living cell and is involved in a huge number of biochemical and physiological processes. Adenine is one of the four nucleobases from which DNA stores all genetic information.) that interferes with the ability of a virus to reproduce viable copies of itself.
The clinical trials that are already underway in many countries to test remdesivir are not scheduled to be complete for a month or two, but there is a strong possibility, IMO, that the drug will prove to be so obviously effective that the studies will be halted or unblinded so that the drug can be more widely used.
This is not common, but it does happen occasionally, in studies in which separate cohorts of patients are randomly and blindly given either the drug under study, or a placebo, plus standard of care (SoC), in order to objectively determine safety and efficacy in a large number of people.
I had predicted all of this weeks ago when I first studied what has been published regarding remdesivir and it usage to treat Ebola patients.
Many writers had erroneously described the drug as not being effective against Ebola, but this is inaccurate and not the case.
Ebola patients receiving only SoC have what is called a case fatality rate (CFR) somewhere in the 80-90% range.
Remdesivir lowered this death rate to between 35%, for people getting the drug soon after being infected, to about 50-55%, for people who did not get it until some later stage of illness.
Very few antiviral drugs work for everyone who takes them, even with identical virus and identical stage of infection or illness.
So that improvement is certainly very significant.
The only reason it was discontinued in the case of Ebola is because there are other treatments which were developed and tested at about the same time, in particular two monoclonal antibody (mAbs) drugs.
These two mAbs, along with another combination of mAbs called ZMAPP were tested along with remdesivir in the 2018-2019 Kivo Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
ZMAPP and remdesivir were deemed to be safe and well tolerated, but ineffective compared to the two new mAbs they were tested against.
So the context is very important here.
45-65% of patients taking a drug and then surviving is not so great if another drug saves as many as 90% of patients, but if it is the only treatment available, and the survival rate with no drugs is little better than 10%, in that case those numbers look excellent, especially for a drug which is generally safe to use and well tolerated.
Of course, it must also be realized that “safe and well tolerated” has a different meaning when used in this context, than it does in other contexts where the stakes are not life and death.
Chemotherapy drugs are a good example of this. They are deemed safe and well tolerated if they do not flat-out kill anyone and at least some people are able to take them for long enough to be helped.
Remdesivir has been shown to have broad anti-viral activity against a large number of viruses in vitro, in animal models, and in cell cultures. It has passed through phase I and phase II clinical trials when used to treat Ebola patients.
It has been shown to kill SARS and MERS coronavirus in animal studies.
The way it works is well understood to be broadly applicable to numerous viruses and types of viruses.
My own best guess is that it will be very effective for same people and some stages of illness, but that there will also be some people who it does not seem to help, or for whom it is less effective but does confer some advantage.
Clinical trials such as the ones being done for remdesivir use what is called double blinding: Neither the patient nor the caregivers are aware of who is getting real drug and who is getting placebo.
But the progress and results of the trials and the state of each patient is being monitored in real time by a group of people called the DSMB, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board.
These are the people who would make a decision to unblind, halt, or terminate a study, for any of several reasons.
There has been some chatter along the lines of such a decision in the case of remdesivir.
During any clinical trial, there are people who are patients who may suddenly get much better right after enrolling in such a study, as well as caregivers who may notice some percentage of patients in a study do far better than others, or to be surviving in a higher percentage than patients not in the study.
In these remdesivir trials instead of half and half, something like 2/3rds of patients are getting the real drug, and only 1/3 getting placebo.
Given what was said to be the case when one patient in Washington was given remdesivir on a compassionate use basis, the results may be immediate and dramatic in at least some group of patients. That person was said to be gravely ill and not expected to survive, but the day after getting remdesivir, he was out of the woods and recovering rapidly.
But nothing can be taken for granted with such info. It could be he had no care until shortly before being given remdesivir. Or he might have been given antibiotics and had the antibiotic fight off some secondary bacterial infection.
Or he might have just been at the stage where his body was able to mount an effective immunological response. Very often in the case of viral illnesses, a person is at the worst stage just prior to the stage where antibody production and immune cell multiplication is able to overcome the infection. In fact the cytokine release and inflammatory response that causes the worst symptoms and much of the damage to the body is exactly what is producing the massive counter attack that eventually overcomes a grave viral infection.
Still, there are some other reports of dramatic results in a few people given remdesivir.
And the recent upturn in the stock price may be from people all over the world who have some awareness of how the results are coming, buying shares of the stock or options in the stock.
If positive results are forthcoming, expect some dramatic and rapid changes on a number of fronts.
An effective treatment, that is already in mass production, and is able to save some or all of the people who get the worst cases of the novel viral disease, seems like it may have a very positive effect on the markets and on behavior of the general populace.
My best guess is that an announcement of success in saving the lives of COVID-19 patients may cause the largest rally in stock market history.
If history is any guide, it will also be the time to dump Gilead stock like a red hot rock.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 7, 2020 1:58 pm

Nicholas, your rant is very good but you need to learn the basics of the english language. You don’t have to make a new paragraph for each sentence. Where did you go to high school? What did you learn?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael
March 7, 2020 3:45 pm

Your point is taken but I have to wonder why you made it?
Is my sentence structure your main takeaway from what I wrote?
If so, you are not my target audience, and I really do not care how you feel about my writing style.

I find myself wondering…how can you deem my “rant” to be “very good”, and yet claim that I do not know the basics of English?
You must have understood me well enough for me to have successfully communicated what was on my mind, no?
And is not the purpose of language, and of writing, to communicate?

And what exactly is it you are attempting to communicate, and how valuable is your message to me or anyone else here?
And why the hell do you care about where I attended high school?
Is my educational background important for you to understand what I write?
I think it is clear that where I went to school and what I did or did not study is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed on this page, this site, and on this topic.

I also think it is clear you ought to go back and learn some more English yourself, since you raised the topic and did so rudely and with no call.
For one think, I said up front it was a Facebook post to my friends, not an essay in a literary journal or a term paper for my freshman year of high school.
Long paragraphs are harder for some people to read, and in fact some people will not even read a long paragraph where they might read part of a short one.
You may have noted many newspapers use this style of writing, or maybe not, since it seems you are not very familiar with the written language yourself, to the extent one example of something someone writes can give anyone else some insight into the secondary school edutainment achievement level of the writer.
Do you honestly think that how I arrange sentences into paragraphs says more about how well I have learned the English language that my ability to convey complex thoughts and ideas in a clear and easily understood way, and to do so on a complex topic that many people likely have limited understanding or knowledge of?
Perhaps you think my vocabulary skills are lacking?
No…that could not be true…not for someone of such limited vocabulary as to characterize what I wrote above as “rant”.
Is that the only word you know for a series of remarks?
Because, I gotta tell ya Mike, it is extremely poor usage.
Horrendous really.
Execrable even.
See here:
“rant (rănt) v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants v.intr. 1. To speak or write in an angry or emotionally charged manner; rave. 2. To express at length a complaint or negative opinion: “He could rant on the subject of physician-assisted illness”…”

Did any of my language therein convey to you feelings of anger or some highly charged emotional state?
Did it sound like raving to you?
Did it not make sense in any way?
Was it consisting of a lengthy complaint or series of complaints, or contain an overly negative opinions of an unwarranted nature?
No…no I think not.

In fact, I think you little rant was far more along the lines of an actual rant.
Unnecessary, negative, emotionally laden, pointless…

By the way, what makes you think I ever went to high school, or am even old enough to have done so?
Whatever gave you the idea I am capable of learning anything?
If I were, I would surely not be wasting my time telling you to “Stuff it where the sun don’t shine!”
But thanks for asking.
Hey…did you know there was a virus going around?
Have you made your list of people you hope get it and die?
Mine just got a little longer!*
* That last part is what is called a “joke”, which I am pointing out to you special-like, since I have noted long since (I think I maybe learnt it in high school English class from a particularly snotty and unpleasant teacher) that pedants typically have zero sense of humor or discernment of nuance.

P.S.: Oopsie daisy! I think I did it again…dang English-as-a-fifteenth-language class did not teach me jack squat!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael
March 7, 2020 4:09 pm

BTW Michael, in addition to working on basic vocabulary and the actual meaning of words, you might want to review the rules, commonly taught in the third or the fourth grade, for comma usage, as well as the rules for when to capitalize words such as proper nouns. Like, for example, the word “English”.

“Nicholas, your rant is very good but you need to learn the basics of the english language.

Very good, gold star young man, for proper comma usage after an initial word that forms an introduction to a sentence, in this case my name.
However, you lost that back, and more, by NOT using one betwixt the two independent clauses separated by a conjunction, in this case the word “but”.
And by not using one for the word English, which any competent first-grader ought to know needs to be capitalized, your overall score is an “F-“.

I have not even considered the case of your usage of the present simple tense case, “What did you learn?” vs. the present perfect tense version, “What have you learned?”
If I had done so, I think I may have had to make the case that your usage was incorrect, and in fact your command of the English language is no better than “atrocious”.

But I see no need to rant about it, so I am going to let that one slide.
Thanks for playing, drive safely.

Jack Roth
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 8, 2020 5:00 pm

Nicholas, for what it’s worth, I find you to be by far the best writer to have ever graced the pages of this blog. Aside from always being impeccably expressed and written, your thoughts are always very well researched and extremely interesting.
I am constantly grateful for all the time and effort that you take for your posts, and I sincerely hope you will continue to offer them so generously.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jack Roth
March 9, 2020 6:21 am

For me, it is worth a lot, and I thank you for your kind words.
That may be the most encouraging thing anyone has ever said to me, and will surely keep me plucking away when I might otherwise have decided I was wasting my time.
I appreciate your taking the time to let me know how you feel.
Have a great day, and stay safe!

-Nick M

Craig Moore
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 7, 2020 2:00 pm
Reply to  Craig Moore
March 7, 2020 2:35 pm

How can it be reality when it hasn’t happened yet?

Craig Moore
Reply to  Scissor
March 7, 2020 4:21 pm
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Craig Moore
March 7, 2020 7:32 pm

Spanish flu happened, although there are many opinions and no consensus about any of the details regarding origin or why it was so deadly.
This zero hedge article describes something that may possibly happen but so far is nothing like close to happening.
However, if one considers it inevitable, the obvious thing to do is be one of the first to get it, while beds are empty and supplies are in full stock.
Much better than getting it when hospitals are overflowing, caregivers are overworked, tired, and beyond being overly concerned with yet another patient, and critical supplies may have run out.
So do me a favor all of you here and do not get it until I am safely ensconced in my cozy hospital semiprivate room, thank you very much.
Lot’s of stuff “just over the horizon” stays right were it is…no where in sight.
In other news, all Pacific atolls are flooded and there are tens of millions of climate refugees, as of two decades ago.

Reply to  Craig Moore
March 8, 2020 7:00 am

Yes, the Spanish flu pandemic happened. Even then were all hospital beds were filled? My reading is that this was not the case.

My belief is that Spanish flu would not be as deadly today because our medical knowledge and capabilities are superior.

Anyway, my point was that one should not say something speculative is “reality” until it has happened. This goes for climate change also. That is not to say we shouldn’t take reasonable steps in advance to address threats.

J Mac
Reply to  Craig Moore
March 7, 2020 3:31 pm

With respect, you shouldn’t conflate a ‘forecast’ with reality.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 8, 2020 3:08 am

Nicholas McGinley
Adenine is one of the four nucleobases from which DNA stores all genetic information.) that interferes with the ability of a virus to reproduce viable copies of itself.

Something that interferes with DNA replication at such a fundamental level is almost certain to pose a risk of embryonic-fetal development abnormalities and birth defects. This is known for another antiviral – Avigan, which Japan is proposing to roll out against Coronavirus despite its known birth defect risk.

Mass roll-out of a DNA-interfering antiviral only risks another Thalidomide like birth defect outbreak. Worse than any results of Coronavirus.

I would say – better not to go there. Just let Coronavirus run its course, it’s only like an above average severity kind of flu. Colds are also corona viruses.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Phil Salmon
March 8, 2020 5:21 am

Colds are also corona viruses. Brilliant summary of the potential for harm, eh?
Well…SARS and MERS are above average severity corona viruses too.
Spanish Flu was above average severity flu.
Small pox was caused by above average severity strain of cow pox virus.
Flesh eating strep is caused by an above average strain of a bacteria that is everywhere, so the time.
The fatal version of e.Coli is a strain of a bacteria in every human but in the planet.
And…so what?

Colds have not caused world stock markets to crash and the world economy to grind to a halt, or schools and factories to close if one single person gets a case of it.
This corona virus could lead to a recession.
It could cause the best president we ever had to get voted out of office if it is perceived he did not respond appropriately.
As for teratogenic or mutagenic potential, all such drugs are not created equal.
There are well known methods for determining the potential for these effects to be a concern.
No one who designs, manufactures, tests, or is involved with approvals and proper labelling of drugs, most especially new drugs, is unaware of thalidomide.
No drug ever enters clinical trials in human subjects prior to being safety tested in multiple species of animals.
Lots of drugs are unsafe for usage by women of child bearing age, nursing moms, or anyone who is actually pregnant.
And lots of them have no known risks.
Plenty more are known to be safe, although anyone with a brain knows if you do not need to take something under certain circumstances, not taking it is best.
Thalidomide was over 60 years ago.
Millions of people take/have taken nucleotide and nucleoside analogue medications, powerful chemotherapy drugs, and all kinds of other stuff with serious mutagenic and teratogenic effects.
Do you have any idea how many people take and have taken this type of drug? Tens of millions.
Gilead has been perfecting the design and testing and manufacturing of this type of drug for many years.
Do you think maybe the scientists who do this work know a few things you have no knowledge of?
Millions worldwide have for many decades used the antiviral called ribavirin, with it’s entire laundry list of positively terrible side effects, and a six month residence time in RBCs, requiring the usage of at least two forms of birth control for women AND MEN for a full six months at least AFTER discontinuation of the treatment. Along with interferon alpha it was for over a decade the standard of care for those seeking to treat chronic infection with the hepatitis C virus.
Remdesivir is given by IV infusion every day for ten days.
No one will be getting it who does not have viral pneumonia or may well get it in the immediate future and is at grave risk of death or at the very least can be assured of weeks of being awfully sick and be lucky to not have permanent lung and even multiple organ damage.
Are you seriously suggesting some vague concern, based on zero research or actual specific knowledge of this particular drug, on the part of an uninformed layperson, but instead based on some irrational mental leap to an isolated instance of a failure of proper testing and oversight many decades ago, should prevent people in such a circumstance from taking a drug which may well save their life?
No one who knows what they are talking about, or who is responsible for saving lives, or has viral pneumonia and is gravely ill and may well die, shares your opinion that, regarding using drugs for medical intervention and saving peoples’ lives, we should just “not go there”.

If you or someone you love is ever in that circumstance, which I hope they never are, how much do you want to bet you will have a change of heart on that?

By the way, since you evidently have not paid close attention to the details, nearly everyone who winds up with the severity level of this illness that winds up being fatal, is long past child bearing years.

Chris Hoff
March 7, 2020 3:04 pm

Greta to CoronaVirus, “How Dare You!”

March 7, 2020 4:12 pm

Coronavirus is the product of a prolonged historical solar minimum and an increase in cosmic rays.

Dave O.
March 7, 2020 4:22 pm

Isn’t this what Greta wants? A slowdown in the world’s economy and thus less co2.

March 7, 2020 4:39 pm

Which ever way considered, a virus, either DNA or RNA, is not alive, it simply consist as code…
One way or another, in principle, consist as propagation, of evolution… of life, with all it’s upsides or downs, or pains and “loses, in the consideration of mutation and leaps, over time and periods;
technically still a way of life and evolution.

Simple as simple as it can be put,
it consist as simply code infection, in consideration of further “upgrades” and changes in regard of adjustments to environmental evolution…
Very much painful at times, but never the less, a way of life and the all schist that comes with it… in all possible and considerable configurations…

Please keep trying as much as you can in blaming the way of life or evolution, but still in the end of the day, death does all us apart, just simply a matter of time,
where and when the best ever outcome,
concludes as six feet under, and as a good fertilizer,
there for the earth… tough and rough,
but that what always the end reality of all there, for each and every one born there or here.

Alright, many have the means and proposition to deny this, at their heart content… but no any thing will ever be changed as far as this goes…
six feet under as the best outcome… in total fairness and no exclusion… as per life and natural order.
(“In some other ways is contemplated that it could be even worse, far much worse”…)

Long ‘life” to the “enlightened” stupid, crazy, insane “”holy” immortals” among us all…

Really sorry for being so direct and rough… or rightfully considered as too cynical also.

And I have no doubt that it is quite heavy to put it so harshly there… but hey, that is me some times!


Gordon Dressler
March 7, 2020 5:47 pm

There is this student Andaga from Ghent,
who on fighting climate change is bent.
But being unable to find sanitizer,
made her intended audience much wiser.
So at far fewer followers must she now vent.

March 7, 2020 8:08 pm

This lot clearly have their priorities screwed up. They are fighting the greatest challenge of all human existence that will wipe out 7bn people in the next 11 years. Yet they are not showing up for fear of catching a virus that, at worst, will take out 200M mostly old men and women over the next two years. They lack conviction for their cause.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  RickWill
March 7, 2020 8:50 pm

Indeed. The latest deaths in Australia were all over 90 years old and in aged care homes. While it is sad to see people fall victim to this virus, a comfortable and painless death at 90+ I would consider to be a good innings.

Phil Salmon
March 8, 2020 3:17 am

The environmental impact of the Greta rally in Bristol, England:

comment image

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights