Category: Current Events

Photo by Lukas from Pexels

Communicating well has never been easy, but it is vital!

In the days of envelopes and stamps communicating was slow and difficult.  At least that’s the way it was for me.  My handwriting is slow and not very legible.  When I see the handwriting of my sons I realise it’s genetic!  There were other contributing factors, but the net result was that I disliked sitting down to write, and so I often put it off.  Thankfully Marti was good at writing and didn’t procrastinate.

Then the Lord had pity on me and brought Terry, so I could dictate as she did shorthand (as we are now).

Technology can help.

When the first personal computers appeared I was very happy and managed to purchase an amazing twin floppy disc laptop that weighed only 13 lbs.  It was both a very helpful tool and, I must admit, something of a status symbol.  I thought it said “Look, I’m up-to-date with the latest technology”.  More than once I thanked my Dad for urging me to take a touch-typing course in high school.

People notice when you communicate reliably

Soon I had a reputation for being someone who answers emails and other forms of communication.  I can’t possibly count the number of times someone has thanked me for answering them.  Sometimes those conversations imply that I was well down the list of people they wanted to hear from, but I replied whereas others didn’t.  These recurring conversations illustrate how much timely and appropriate communications help.

So here are a few tips for communicating well.

–  You have to manage your incoming messages.  That starts by deciding what platforms you will engage with and which ones you should avoid. I counted my platforms the other day and realised that I had twelve (emails, texts, whatsapp, telegram, signal etc). Think about it as strategically as you can and decide how you will approach managing your incoming messages.

– Discipline:  I am well aware that that word is easier for some than others, but the task of keeping messages to a manageable level is mostly a matter of discipline. This may mean going through them and deciding which ones you are not obliged to answer, and which ones you feel are lower priority so you won’t reply.  The crucial thing is to keep vital messages from getting lost in a huge number of incoming messages.  This goal of a manageable Inbox means you have to go through all of your incoming information and delete the things that are not a high priority such as news flashes, subscription appeals and so on.

– Plan each week in advance and schedule in communication times.  If something pressing has to take precedence over your communication time, don’t delete it, reschedule it.

– Plan into your schedule when and how often you will check your messages.  This gets harder and harder as your hand-held device pings you to say a new message has arrived.  You can end up spending a lot of time responding to low priority messages while the high priority ones remain unanswered.

– Be gracious.  When emails first appeared, followed by all the other platforms, it was often said that the advantage was that you could get “right to the business”.  In other words you didn’t have to take the time to greet someone, affirm the other person, thank them, or otherwise demonstrate the sort of empathy that was expected in handwritten letters.  In my view that is a sad loss.  It’s not really time-consuming to say “thanks for all the effort you put into this” or “I appreciate this or that about you”.

– If for some reason you expect that you will be unable to answer emails for a few days or even a couple of weeks, notify the people who are likely to be in touch.  Most platforms make provision for an automatic reply that explains your period of absence.

– If your correspondent wants or needs help that you cannot provide, for example they ask a question that you cannot answer, send a brief note saying exactly that, and that you will try to find the answer or refer the question to someone else.  Just a quick answer will let the person know that they are not being ignored.

– Politeness costs nothing but makes a huge difference in making people feel valued.

“Reliable communication permits progress”   Proverbs 13:17  Living Bible.

Lynn Green.

Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán from Pexels

Since I posted the previous article, a few significant things have happened. As of today, 18 members of our three generations of family here in the UK have had Covid-19. There are 22 of us all together and we all saw one another over Christmas. I am one of the four who have not had the effects of the virus. All the adults were vaccinated.

FAMILY EXPERIENCE WITH COVID-19

One of the cases was moderately severe. Jessica is the wife of our son, Michael, and she came down with some of the less usual, but not unknown, symptoms of gastroenteritis. She is recovering, but it has lasted for more than two weeks thus far.

Marti, who like me, is in her 70s also developed the virus about a week ago. She had the usual chills, headache, cough and aches and pains, loss of smell and some taste. Within two days the big symptom was loss of energy. Now, nine days later, she has tested negative and has been recovering a little each day since about day 6. She feels near normal, but if the pattern continues, will probably run low on energy as the late afternoon draws near.

For the others who had it recently, it consisted of cold-like symptoms that lasted for two or three days, or perhaps a little longer in the older ones (middle to late forties).

SOME MORE HOPEFUL SIGNS

I also note that the media are just now beginning to publicise the results of tests that challenge the official policies and, there are occasional published statements from experts who disagree with the official statements. One I read recently listed hypertension (high blood pressure) as one of the contraindications.

BUT NOT SO HOPEFUL FOR ME

Since my Pfizer booster jab, my blood pressure has jumped to an unacceptably high level, so I will be seeking medical help. I am sorry about that because I am the only one of my siblings and parents who managed to avoid hypertension medication. I did so, I think, by maintaining a healthy diet, weight and exercise regimen.

WHEN TO MASK?

This more-open-news environment has also uncovered more information on wearing masks. Here is a sample from an article by Joseph Mercola:

Linsey Marr, is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech and an expert on viral transmission mechanics. She states, “Viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or passers-by is negligible.” Even if a person coughs or sneezes outside as you walk by, the odds of you getting a large enough dose of virus to become infected remain low.”

MASKS HAVE OTHER EFFECTS:

Mercola’s article goes on to quote other research on the consequences of wearing masks:

“Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions may be at risk of a medical emergency if wearing a face mask.

“This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks, breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease, fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.

“Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).

“They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. Germany’s first registry recording the effects mask wearing has on children, has identified 24 physical, psychological and behavioural health issues associated with wearing masks. Recorded symptoms include:“… irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

“Of the 25,930 children included in the registry, 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play. Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

A REPY TO A COMMENT

A person named Desmond commented on my previous article and pointed out that I left some important things out–hence this further article. Here is some of my reply. “There was SO MUCH more to say, but it was already a very long article. [There is} no doubt that the damage of mask-wearing far outweighs any actual protection, except when in very close contact indoors.

Then there are the Federal Government financial incentives (in the USA) for hospitals for every Covid patient treated. Highly qualified experts like Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Pierre Kori are worried about the obvious temptation that presents to hospital administrators. (I know of a cases where hospital doctors were repeatedly instructed to put Covid on the death certificate in cases where another cause was much more obvious. It happened on my mother’s death certificate.)

Then there was the further federal financial incentive if the patient “had to be put on a ventilator”. This would be a plausible explanation for why all home treatment therapies were discredited and any mention of them on social media was censored. No treatment outside hospitals will naturally lead to more people admitted and that means more income. Nations where outpatient treatments were pursued had fewer deaths from Covid.

What are the reasons behind these policies that don’t make much sense now that we have hindsight? You can take your pick of the several possible motives.

Let’s assume, for purpose of this article that I am walking straight forward when I am sure a “scientific fact” is true.  When that certainty does not stand up to further tests, and some uncertainty is introduced, then I make a left or right turn of 90 degrees.  When a “scientific fact” is disproven, I have to make a U-turn, 180 degrees.

We Managed to Cope

When I started my journey through the Covid pandemic, I was a trusting soul, walking straight ahead on the path laid before me by “science”.  This led to the first lockdown.  Our entire extended family (children and grandchildren, 21 of us) lived within walking distance of Marti and me, so we thought and talked quite a lot.  We decided that since Marti and I are in our seventies, we could claim our daughter, Sharon, who is a nurse, as our carer.  That would make it sensible to declare a two-household “bubble”, so we could have a small measure of family togetherness.  We were pushing the boundaries of the government guidelines, but technically compliant.

Early on, some scientists published articles stating that transmission of the virus when outdoors was very unlikely.  So, we made a small right turn and invited the other family members to come into our back garden.  We knew our behaviour might be questionable to others, but we concluded that we should not totally curtail extended family life because of what others might think.  None of us contracted Covid as we mixed together.

Don’t Touch!  No, it’s Okay.

We were careful to wash our hands and use hand sanitiser at that stage.  Then studies seemed to show that the virus did not survive on surfaces but was viable when airborne.  Shortly after that a large trial was done via widespread testing of surfaces on public transport in the UK.  No viruses were found on surfaces.  We made a U-turn and gave our chapped hands a break.

No Need to Shave for a While

We donned masks for indoor activities and, for the reassurance of others, when in proximity to others, even though outdoors—like standing in the queues outside stores.  Then came the studies that concluded that masks didn’t help much, if at all.  Then came the studies to discredit those studies.  We turned left, then right, then a U-turn and then didn’t know where to turn.

The Dawn of Hope or Fake News?

We heard that the malarial prophylactic, Hydroxychloroquine was very effective as a Covid-19 therapy.  Then the major health authorities, i.e. the World Health Authority, the FDA, Public Health England and similar authorities in most Western nations, declared it to be a dangerous drug.  Our thinking made a rather tentative 180-degree turn.  Then the advocates of Hydroxychloroquine pointed out that billions of doses had been administered over decades and that those same health authorities had declared it, pre-Covid-19, to be an unusually safe drug for the treatment of a wide range of diseases.  We didn’t know which way to turn, so we stood still on that one and pirouetted for a while.

We had barely recovered from that one, when the Ivermectin dispute arose.  It has long been demonstrated to be a remarkable defence against bacteria and inflammation but was also proven effective against a number of viral diseases.  Doctors began to report amazing results in Mexico, India, Argentina, Peru etc.  These were places where the vaccines were too expensive or there was insufficient supply (as the richer nations rolled out universal vaccination policies).  Here was hope for a straight path we could travel!

Then the same health authorities declared Ivermectin to be dangerous too.  They referred to it as a “horse de-wormer” and mocked those who were using it or recommending it.  They failed to mention that it has many applications and that its developers were awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine.  Many experts have referred to it as one of the few “wonder drugs” because of its wide range of efficacy and very low risk.  As this exchange unfolded in the press we half turned and then turned back again, but then stayed at about a right-hand turn.  We weren’t too sure at that point.

No More Lockdowns?   Maybe!

Months passed and we were given enough information to evaluate the effectiveness of different national strategies.  Lockdowns didn’t fare well.  Nations that did not lock down didn’t have, as predicted, the highest hospitalisation and mortality rates.  Nations that did lock down still had uncontrollable outbreaks. It was time to make a full U-turn about the long-term effectiveness of lockdown. 

Narrow Thinking.

Then we noted that governments seemed to be unable to take the wide spectrum of policy consequences into account. They seemed to be so busy counting Covid cases, hospitalisations and Covid deaths that they could not consider the impact on children’s education and socialisation; mortality rates of untreated cancers, heart disease etc; mental health and suicide rates; domestic violence; church closures; theatre, sports and recreation curtailments; and the massive damage done to the hospitality and travel industries, retailers and service providers—well, the list just goes on and on.  At this point, we had to stop with our mouths open and stare in unbelief at the absence of wise leadership.

We Were Warned to be Afraid.  But They Weren’t!

We were trying to follow the medical science, as distributed by our government, but gave up in the end.  Our final loss of confidence came when news leaked about the government parties during a strict lockdown period over Christmas 2020.  The hypocrisy was obvious, but the fact that they were not afraid to party without masks, when the general population was warned of the great danger, led us to ask, “What do they know that they are not telling us?  They are intelligent people with access to more information than we have, why are they not afraid?”

Tracking is the Reason

But the insults to our intelligence just kept coming.  Health science experts were discovering that natural immunity after contracting Covid-19 was very good, but governments would not recognise it.  Personally, I still needed to travel on some occasions, so I went ahead and got the vaccinations.  But I still had to ask why those who had recovered had to be restricted as if they had no immunity.  Where was the science behind that?

Then came a very big OOPS!  The vaccine protection did not last very long.  The big pharma companies that had the multibillion dollar/pound contracts to give us the original jabs, needed more money from taxpayers to give them another one after six months—then another one six months later.  How long will this go on?  (And where will the billions come from.  There are only two alternatives, higher taxes, or the indirect tax of hyperinflation.)

Some of these deep-impact contradictions began to make sense when the money was taken into consideration.  Early on, governments had allocated billions of dollars for the development of anti-Covid-19 vaccines.  Their obvious intention was to protect us, but to be sure they were doing that, our vaccination status had to be tracked.  If many people were avoiding the experimental vaccines in favour of therapeutics or because they had natural immunity, then the tracking system could never encompass everyone.   That explained why good reports about Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and other treatments had to be dismissed. 

Is There a Reason Behind Tracking?

At this point (January 2022) there is a welcome debate about the wisdom of legally requiring vaccine passports.  But we have already seen unvaccinated people losing their jobs, and government mandates requiring vaccination for key workers.  In the USA, those Federal Government mandates are being challenged in the courts of many states.

Follow the Money—As Usual.

My family and I have been exchanging articles and information on this subject for the past two years, that is why I am using “we” so much.  About a year ago, we gradually concluded that we would continue to read widely on this subject, but we would more readily believe those who had no conflict of interest.  That tends to cast some doubt on those who have close connections with the profits coming from vaccines, testing and other beneficiaries of this disease.  We are also sceptical of authorities that have large grants from companies or trusts associated with companies that are profiting from Covid-19.  We are also a little more sceptical if the source of information has links with the Communist Party of China.  Those considerations produce question marks over WHO, the FDA, Imperial College London (among many universities and their labs) and many big tech companies.

We understand that no politician wants to be publicly accused of making decisions that failed to protect the public.  When the next election comes, they would rather be accused of overcontrol than lethal passivity.  So we are also somewhat sceptical about politicians. 

Have You Decided Who to Trust?

This pandemic has demonstrated that the subjective and self-interested nature of human beings can warp any scientific processes and claims.  I read an article this morning in which the author, who has taken a very different position than I have in this article, stated that “We must follow the experts.  Choose who you trust and listen to them.”

We have chosen to trust those who have expertise arising from treating patients, who stand to receive no financial benefit, who are not protecting a prestigious position and who are not afraid of online mob action (which sometimes turns to immediate physical threats outside their homes or workplaces).  We choose to be sceptical towards those who overuse threat and fear to motivate the public.  We would not be very attentive to those who say it is immoral to refuse the vaccine.  Accusations, threats and bribes should never be used rather than reliable information. That reliable information must include the risks associated with the vaccines.  There are risks and those risks for children    outweigh the risks of serious Covid-19 illness or death. 

Unreliable Statistics -They Don’t Tell an Accurate Story.

Reliable information also means that the oversimplification and inflating of statistics with the aim of getting more people to take the vaccine should be exposed.  I won’t go into such a major subject here but have a look at whether people have Covid prior to hospitalisation or contract it in hospital. Look at the extent to which obesity increases risk.  Look at the difference between dying WITH Covid or dying FROM Covid.  Look up the average age of the people who die of Covid (over 82 years in the UK).  Look up the percentage of Covid -19 deaths with co-morbidities (that means a disease or condition likely to cause death—it is nearly 93%).

THINK! And Stay Free.

The past two years have seen the curtailment of many freedoms and incalculable damage to our societies.  Government control has been extended more than most of us would have ever thought possible.  Those who question official pronouncements and restrictions have been labelled and gagged by the greater authorities and influences.  Many of us have had these questions but have been quiet for a variety of reasons.  Freedom comes only when dissenting opinions can be aired and when all sides of issues can be examined and discussed publicly without recrimination.

It is time to decide who you will listen to, to stay open to new information, to question those who are most concerned with being re-elected, to distrust those who are profiting from Covid-19, to discuss, debate and SPEAK UP!  Whatever position you take, stay open to new information and engage in the debates and conversations.  That is the only way a free society can survive.

A visit to Colorado

Marti and I just returned to England from a brief trip to Colorado where we connected again with family, friends, and home church.  As always, we were refreshed by the beauty of the mountains and desert, enjoyed long walks and climbs.  Both of us grew up in less populated communities and we like the benefits of more space and less traffic.

We all know that the USA, and Western societies in general, have been drifting away from Biblical Christian values for a long time, but the pace can no longer be described as “drifting away”.  Now it appears to be a headlong rush into beliefs and values that are untried in any major culture until now.

No true truth?

The original post-modern philosophy has continued to evolve.  There was substantial truth in the idea that a given text or event can be experienced and recounted in many ways—ultimately as many ways as there were people having the experience.  That idea morphed into the unworkable assumption that each person has their own truth and there is no such thing as “true truth”.  By that I mean objective truth; truth that exists independently of what people think is true.

Attacking our children

That has, in turn, set people and groups of people against one another in ways that were unimaginable a few decades ago.  That was illustrated when we had a conversation with the parents of a 12-year-old girl.  A few weeks earlier, she had phoned her mother in tears from the school to plead with her to come get her because she could not return to the classroom.  Her teacher had made her feel so guilty for being white that she couldn’t face her another day, nor the non-white members of her class. 

What made this incident more troubling is that the class was a bi-lingual group of young people who had been together through several years of schooling without racial tension, and their friendships had been oblivious to race.  But the anti-racist teaching (a departure from the official curriculum) divided friends from friends along racial lines.

I needn’t go on with more examples.  There are so many of them, and you will have some of your own!

The Prince of Peace, or a fight for power?

This rush into a new belief system looks like it could thoroughly displace Christianity (or what we might call Civil Christianity) with different beliefs.  These are based upon seeing the world through the paradigm of struggles for power between competing groups.

Should we be lamenting these rapid and dramatic changes? 

Yes and no.

Yes—because Civil Christianity produced a measure of individual freedom and prosperity that is unprecedented in human history.   The limited number of Biblical values embraced by society at large, were short of New Testament faith, but still resulted in low crime, high innovation, great individual opportunity and more.  That is not to say that those benefits were equally distributed, but it was widely recognised that they should be available to all—as much as possible in a “fallen” world.  That system was always flawed, but most people recognised it had to be improved rather than discarded all together.

The power of teachers and professors

There were, however, some influential intellectuals, mostly in academia, who claimed that Civil Christianity, and the democracies that sprang from it, were fatally flawed, could never be reformed, and had to be destroyed.  That view has come to dominate much of our educational system, from the Universities first, right down to pre-schools now.  Yes, we should lament the erosion of all those benefits and the pain being suffered by our children.

The future could still be bright!

There might, however, be a reason to celebrate.

Civil Christianity was something of a vaccination against the real thing.  The entertainment industry has been stuck on the theme of the hypocrisy of Church-going people for decades.  And it was true—though not as universally true as depicted.  But there was never more than a small minority who were fully committed to loving God “with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength and their neighbour as themselves”.  The social and civil commitment to Churchgoing provided common values for our societies, but also provided false comfort for millions, each of whom thought of themselves as a “good person”, with no need of redemption or a genuine faith.  As a result, there was a superficial gloss of good appearance which often hid corruption, greed, and immorality that damaged millions of people.

The good news is that, when we the darkness seems overwhelming, the light is much easier to see.  That’s what happened in the earliest days of the Church and it has happened several times since.

Drawn to the light in Odessa

Many years ago, I was travelling through the USSR with a group of young Christians.  We spent a few nights in a campground near Odessa, Ukraine and a young man named Igor visited our camp.  He spoke good English and immediately began to ask questions about Christian faith.  He was proud to have come into possession of a copy of the soundtrack to “Jesus Christ Superstar!”  Our conversations demonstrated that, when our spiritual dimension is denied and forbidden, the hunger for spiritual life grows and grows. 

Truth can be demonstrated by statistics

The proof of that truism is not just anecdotal.  The greatest numerical growth in the history of Christianity was in China during the decades when faith in God was most persecuted.  From about 1952 until the early 1990s, Christians and adherents to other religions were hated and feared by the Communist regime and yet the Church grew from just over half a million to over 50 million—and possibly double that number.

Iran provides another illustration of growth under pressure.  Students of Church Growth have noted that the greatest percentage growth of the Church under any regime has been from the inception of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979 until now.

Opposition makes us stronger

When the governmental powers of a nation are opposed to Christian faith, then hunger for true Christianity grows—often dramatically. 

Though we lament on one hand; on the other we see a cause to celebrate.  The beauty of Jesus Christ is no longer obscured by a counterfeit; evil is clearly seen to be evil and people of Christian faith standout in contrast to it.  In other words, it is possible that the stage is being set for “the great end-times ingathering”. 

If that lies before us soon, what does it mean to sincere Christians now?  I think Peter writes it well in his first letter, chapter 1 and verse 7. 

These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold—though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So, when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honour on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world.

Lynn Green.