Blog Archives


Dealing with Covid 19 particles has interaction and uncertainty, with a hope of overcoming them through technological skill, population commitment and good leadership.


Dormant; Contact transmission; Surface transmission; Vector transmission; Infection; Reproduction; Virility increase; New variant; Deactivated


Travel restriction; International borders closed;  State borders closed; District borders closed; Quarantined entry; Self-Isolation; Public transport restricted; Private transport restricted; Event crowd restriction; Restriction of gatherings in public spaces; Social distancing in public spaces; Restriction of custom in restaurants, businesses; Home gatherings restriction; Closure of businesses; Closure of schools; Compulsory masking; Cleaning; Sterilisation; Wearing PPE; Compulsory testing; Contact tracing; Vaccination; Immune System Strengthening.


Human purpose of play is to prevent infection by virus particles. The virus purpose could be to reproduce and infect humans. An infection could result from one, or very many, virus particles. Human moves can oppose virus particles movement. Because there are many virus particles and they are small, human defence can counter applying many technologies simultaneously. Because virus particles are small, elimination of virus particles cannot be observed. Implementing many technologies can disrupt social and economic living. Alternatively, humans can decline to defend and accept casualties. The consequences of inaction are not known. 


Reduction of deaths and hospitalisations to pre-pandemic rates is sought, indicated by decline in number of positive tests to zero.


Opposition to an almost invisible enemy requires an objective response based on testing, contact tracing and diagnosis. Controlled tests are required to detect its presence and prevent spreading. Preventive cautionary moves require sound objective reasoning to show benefits that surpass the value of costs to the community. In default of reason, allowing the disease to run its course should be considered.

40 of my previous Covid posts are on my blog:


Individuals exposed to infection by COVID19 have responded mainly in three ways. They have accepted the risk unprotected, self-protected, or have obtained protection by government restriction of their own and others’ activities. Consequences are not yet fully known but government intervention has already created a precedent for public health policy.
Given a choice between catching a dangerous virus and losing employment, few people would hesitate to stay home. Response to past influenza outbreaks was largely individual, without regulation of individual activity. Regulative response to COVID-19 has attributed new potential for infection but this has not been manifest in all countries. Virulence of COVID-19 has been summarised by Swiss Policy Research as follows.
‘In countries like the US, the UK, and also Sweden (without a lockdown), overall mortality since the beginning of the year is in the range of a strong influenza season; in countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, overall mortality is in the range of a mild influenza season.’ 
Compared with previous responses to influenza, lockdown in Australia for COVID-19 has had new levels of social control compared with past outbreaks, when it was left to individuals to decline risks, or accept them with mild social sanctions. Unless COVID-19 is significantly more virulent, social and economic consequences of government protection seem disproportionate to other influenza treatments. Perhaps public health care has advanced and people expect better protection nowadays. Ordinary influenzas nevertheless continue to kill without social regulation. In Australia in 2017, 4269 deaths from influenza and pneumonia had less social control, whereas in 2020 there have been 103 deaths to June 25 from COVID-19. Protection imposed by restriction of public behaviour for COVID-19 is relatively a loss of liberty, compared with for example: inability to go to work by accepting personal risk similar to crossing the road. Young lives could be stunted. Those who want protection would be free to self-protect at home, especially elderly people who are most vulnerable. Supposing that COVID-19 hangs around for repeat seasons, or new virulent viruses arrive, the regulation of the many, for the benefit of the few, could threaten restoration of society, unless we revert to the kinds of voluntary behaviour that were accepted for so long. When difference in virulence numbers between countries is clear, actions needed could be clearer.


Jenner’s 1796 cowpox vaccine generated lymphocytes to attack the smallpox pathogen. According to New Scientist 21/03 vaccine development takes 5 years.

In the meantime, Louis Pasteur’s (1822-1895) theory is to prevent and treat disease by killing germs. Alternatively, Antoine Béchamp (1816 -1908) proposed his ‘cellular theory’ or ‘biological terrain’, based on fostering good health. Principia Scientific on April 7th, 2020 updated respect for his theory.

Towards the end of his life, Pasteur renounced his germ theory and admitted that Bechamp was right all along.

All three theories are in use against COVID-19. A vaccine is being attempted, Pasteur’s method is trying to prevent spreading, transmission and inhalation of germs, using distance, barriers and disinfectants. Bechamp’s method strengthens immune system responses with diet, hygiene, fresh air and exercise. The three are complements but reducing exercise and fresh air would be contrary to Bechamp’s and anything enabling germ access would oppose Pasteur’s.

Public health advice has elements of all three approaches. Whether a person follows ‘germ theory’, or ‘vaccination’, or ‘cellular theory’, empirical validation would relate it to the health outturn.

%d bloggers like this: