Brewer's Droop #277

12 commentsPrintTweetShareEmail


It’s been a while but I’ve had so many things to write about, then the world kept changing so quickly it’s been hard to keep up. And I’m really getting tired of hearing about the Corona Virus.

But (sigh) there was one thing I heard today that I just had to comment on.

No big deal and I expect you all know this anyway.

I heard someone saying they needed some antibiotics because they thought they might be getting the flu – to protect them from it.

That sort of talk really makes me irritated.

So I googled a few sources and copied some quotes out for those who actually do believe this to be true (or think the earth is flat).

Here they are.

Influenza vaccines prevent or mitigate infections. They are designed to induce a protective immune response in the body against the viruses represented in the vaccine.Antibiotics are medicines that interfere with the reproduction of bacteria and are, therefore, only useful for treating bacterial infections.

Antibiotics are strong medicines that treat bacterial infections. Antibiotics won’t treat viral infections because they can’t kill viruses. You’ll get better when the viral infection has run its course. Common illnesses caused by bacteria are urinary tract infections, strep throat, and some pneumonia.

Antibiotics are medications that fight infections caused by bacteria, but the flu is caused by a virus. Taking antibiotics when you have a virus may do more harm than good. Taking antibiotics when they are not needed increases your risk of getting an infection later that may resist antibiotic treatment.

Why Won’t Antibiotics Cure Cold or Flu?
Antibiotics only cure certain infections due to bacteria — and if taken carelessly, you may get more serious health problems than you bargained for.
With any illness, it is critical to address the underlying cause, whether it’s bacterial or viral. Antibiotics will not kill cold or flu viruses.


I don’t want to drone on about this bug thing but I sometimes wonder if our government has really thought this through properly.

I know they reacted quickly and that’s very good. Commendable. I even think that extending it was probably sensible.

But there are a couple of things I don’t understand.

Alcohol and cigarettes (you knew I was going to say that didn’t you).

Let me first say that the alcohol ban doesn’t bother me (much) because I have a big cellar. Secondly I don’t smoke cigarettes.

But why these bans?

For the poor sods who look forward to a beer and a fag at the end of the day it’s the final insult.

But it’s worse than that.

If any government officials or ministers are reading this (and I know there are a few of you) I’d like to explain the basics of “Action and Reaction” – you know, like they teach 10 year olds, you stupid people.

Now, let’s take cigarettes as an example. Your “action” is to close down the plant and stop shops from selling them. The “reaction” is that in one of the shops a staff member loses his/her job (won’t mention customers yet) because 18% of sales come from tobacco.

The snowflakes will say “ah, but that’s good – he or she will be healthier”.

But “reactions” don’t work like that you see. That man/woman probably has a family – say 4 or 5 people in total (mother, father, grandmother and two kids) all of whom are now hungry because there’s no money coming into the house.

That’s happening all over the country. People are going hungry. The Exchequer is losing tax revenue. What for? And I’m waiting still to hear Cyril explain how cigarettes spread Covid-19.

This kind of response will have much more serious consequences.

Unemployment will soar. Businesses will close. The Rand will plummet further. Crime will increase. Rioting will be commonplace. Domestic violence will increase. Divorce rates will rise. Death from poison will increase (from home brewing) and hunger will be rampant.

The black marketers are already revving their motors – all because you didn’t think it through, Cyril.

More wine, I think.

Cheers all – keep your distance and stay safe.


Filed as:


  1. Call me a cynical conspiracy theorist, but the only logical reason for the cigarette ban is that somebody (or bodies) is making serious money out of the illicit or untaxed side of the business. No smoker I know is going without. They are simply buying cigarettes that have been made or imported illegally. (The cigarette police would be able to track those for which “sin tax” is payable). Many will not go back to the more expensive brands once the ban is lifted. Ergo a whole new market has been created for the purveyors of non-government smokes.

  2. Well said!

  3. Sometimes I wonder how on earth many of our politicians are elected. Surely everyone can see they are mostly clinically deranged?

    And don’t they ever stop and think what will happen next?

  4. This rant feels like what I have heard time and again come out of the UK. Old school arguments that are only considered by individuals for their own interests. The government is doing a great job for once in SA. Trauma units at hospital are filled with drink related issues most evenings. I have seen stats that say over 90% of admissions in the evenings are drink related. And this is a global issue, not just an issue in SA. If hospitals need to function in a productive way during CV-19, ban liquor sales. I had heard it’s achieving the desired effect.

    • I think you should stick to one point at a time Kevan – and do try to comment on something you know about.

      Try to relax and have a drink – that’ll help.


  5. PREACH! On the antibiotics.

    But wait . . . I once took my then young son to a doctor, because he had a cold or some such, and was prescribed antibiotics. I then confirmed that what my young man had was a cold, and didn’t antibiotics not really work for viruses. “Yes,” said doctor man. “Why do you prescribe them then?” asked I. “Because people want them.” Really. He said that. I’m still horrified.

    • Scary!

  6. Well written , Chris, as usual to the point. I agree I cannot understand the ban on cigarette and alchohol sales, apart from the fact it has kept our hospitals clear of the related accidents over consumption causes. However, we are being treated like a bunch of misbehaving children. If the issue is the control of alchohol consumption in the townships , well I doubt the ban has had any affect.
    I would like to know why the insurance companies haven’t given us any relief on our premiums. The banks have been gracious, surely the insurance companies should provide some relief, after all we are all at home, not driving anywhere and looking after our properties —– ?????

    • Good point Fred.

  7. Good for you Chris! The suggestion that retailers must no longer sell hot food is equally ridiculous. What about that poor bugger who looks forward to his hot meal , pap and chicken or chips and chicken, that he can pick up from the stores for not very much money. It’s probably the only hot meal he has in a day. And pies, I ask you, the staple of most workers. Pies also not allowed to be sold.
    Is this a power thing I cry!

  8. Banning alcohol sales is an opportunity seized upon by members of the Temperance Society of which our minister of police is, Im sure a member.
    Don’t these people ever read(?) history – Prohibition never worked in the USA during the twenties and led to an unprecedented crime wave, gang violence, racketeering, bootlegging and murders!
    But hey, we have that already in spades in the Western Cape.
    Lets not let the lockdown kill more people than the virus.
    And what about exercise and dog walking? How do solo walks spread the disease? And when Im in Pick n Pay, why cant I buy a baking pan or other “non-essentials”? How is that going to stop the spread of the virus? When Im in the shop for tomatoes, Im in the shop! Eish.

    • Absolutely agree with your theory.


Leave a comment