You're making the assumption that my remark centres solely around deaths due to C19. Not the case - as you point out, this bug is small beer, however staying on the subject of virus-based disease outbreaks, I'll take the opportunity to remind one-and-all that Covid-19 is just one of an increasing number and that the next one may be as bad or worse - there is simply no way of knowing. Our continuing attack on nature to provide (mostly meat-based) food is a form of Russian roulette - do the reading, if you will. Here is one paper as an example.The utility cyclist wrote:simonineaston wrote:small dwelling not going to "save the planet"... wot's need is (drastically) less humans, which, coincidentally or not, is wot's just about to happen!!
Where is that happening? If you're referring to the current situation regards a minor virus strain then you're going to be massively disappointed with the reduction in human beings
Any 'excess' deaths are government induced, deaths due to inaction/reactions to a minor virus strain and removed health care which means people dying from their existing health conditions a short period earlier than expected (as admitted by the governments own adviser Neil Ferguson)
Something that barely registers from a numerical POV (ignoring the government lies) and is less harmful than a good flu years death toll - you have actually looked at the government/NHS released death numbers FROM the minor virus strain right, is going to leave you well short of your 'drastic' reduction.
My remark was made on the basis of two strands of thought. One that there is increasing anxiety amongst climate scientists that as the modelling becomes more accurate due to the increased availability of data that focuses on recent change, the consensus is that worst-case outcomes may have to be revised to include outcomes that make uncomfortable reading. Second is the growing evidence that the warming that has already happened has resulted in unexpected consequences and that these are likely to feed into the existing patterns in ways that will accelerate current trends, with the possibility that we may see run-away change. Specifically, take the example of methane as a so-called greenhouse gas. Again, you are free to do the reading, but my entirely non-scientific guess is that we are about to witness radical changes in the fundamental make-up of the atmosphere, that will result in changes so catastrophic that the ability of the planet to support life, at least for higher animals, of which mammals ie us, are just one example, will cease. Unfortunately, I'm not alone in thinking this way - again, do the reading. There is recent emerging evidence to support my fears and it goes without saying that I take no pleasure whatsoever in noting this...
Dear old Prof. Lovelock, now in his second year of his second century!, has been describing this sort of eventuality for a couple of decades now, setting aside his always controversial notion of the Gaia hypothosis, and focusing instead on his observations regarding the mechanics of planet stasis. He has published a number of books since first describing Gaia and has refined his conclusions as evidence emerges - sadly, it is begining to look increasingly like he was right in his broadest predictions...
google methane clathrates if you fancy a chuckle. The much-feared escape of this powerful green-house gas has been speculated about for a couple of decades and has now just been detected in both the antarctic and the russian tundra. The fact that it's methane means we can wring much fart-based humour out of the topic, so at least we'll be laughing when the [inappropriate word removed] comes down - oops - sorry! more bottom-based humour crept in there!! hoho wot a larf 