It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corona Virus Indentifies Big Government Shills

page: 168
91
<< 165  166  167    169  170 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2020 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Maybe after this is all over AM you could write to the IRS and tell them you're not a government shill so stop taking my money.

With the COVID 19 around just maybe they won't put you in jail too fast!



None of us are going to have any money to take.




posted on May, 21 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There will be plenty of money, just it will be more useful as toilet roll.



posted on May, 21 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There will be plenty of money, just it will be more useful as toilet roll.



You mean injecting trillions of fake liquidity into a market while simultaneously suspending production of goods and services will lead to inflationary forces? *gasp* Who could have possibly seen this coming?!



posted on May, 22 2020 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You’re obviously crazy, this will have no economic impact.

Was all for the good of everyone’s health.



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Somebody was concerned about Chinese Shills?


Imperial College gets £5 million "sponsorship" from Huawei



Imperial College London has signed a sponsorship deal with Huawei to finance a new "tech hub" on its West London campus.

Although details are scarce about what this "hub" amounts to, which was first reported by the Mail on Sunday, it is understood £5m ($6m) will be given to the university to invest in its White City campus in West London.

This sponsorship has raised concerns as the university is at the forefront of the UK's efforts against the current Covid-19 pandemic, and Huawei is listed by the US government as a potential security threat.


Curious timing, eh what?
edit on 23-5-2020 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Somebody was concerned about Chinese Shills?


Imperial College gets £5 million "sponsorship" from Huawei



You're a shill for pointing out the shills.






edit on 23-5-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer but he does have Corona



posted on May, 23 2020 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




posted on May, 23 2020 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: RadioRobert




About as ironic as saying the Imperial College model didn't use testing data for inputs. Or that anyone who claims the actual death rate is less than 2% or that asymptomatics exist are Chinese shills while the Imperial College model you claim is the god standard assumed 0.9% ifr and 50% asymptomatics. Or maintaining constantly the ifr is 2% and everyone else is a shill/idiot, while even Ferguson revised down to between 0.6%-0.8%. Or, or, or... The meter broke. We'll have to buy a new one.



posted on May, 24 2020 @ 08:10 PM
link   
www.cdc.gov...

CDC: Best estimate for symptomatic cases-fatality: 0.4%

Best estimate of symptomatic case -hospitalization: 1.7%

Best estimate for numbers of asymptomatics: 35%

Best estimate for total/true IFR (using asymptomatic+symptomatic case): 0.26%

You'll have to math out the last one, because for some reason they don't include it...

Their absolute worst-case scenario using all upper bounds is a 1% fatality rate for symptomatics, and 50% asymptomatic cases, which gives us a true IFR of 0.5%.


Don't worry, though someone will be here any moment to tell you the true IFR is 2% and the CDC is a shill for China! And you'll never see it on the TV news from the same bootlickers that promoted the 3-4% mortality rate to justify stealing inalienable rights.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

So you’re saying our rubbish math actually panned out to be extremely accurate?

Must have been blind luck.

Do you expect apologies or excuses now?



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: HelloboysImbackguy

My best guess based on analysis of the numbers is a fatality ratio around 0.1% - 0.3%



Posted in March and met with claims I had no idea what I was talking about. Ridiculed for my math and analysis.

Hate to say I told you so but.......



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

I've said between .5 and .8%

I feel terrible for anyone I might have scared into submission.



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 12:58 AM
link   


“It is a race, yes. But it's not a race against the other guys. It's a race against the virus disappearing, and against time,” Professor Hill, 61, told the Telegraph from his university laboratory, long emptied by the lockdown.
“We said earlier in the year that there was an 80 per cent chance of developing an effective vaccine by September.
“But at the moment, there’s a 50 per cent chance that we get no result at all.
“We’re in the bizarre position of wanting Covid to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining."


Telegraph

Professor Hill apparently hasn't seen the scary media reports...



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Wow, it's amazing how people with no medical degree actually had the numbers correct and the fascist apologists that had one were totally incorrect.



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: HelloboysImbackguy

My best guess based on analysis of the numbers is a fatality ratio around 0.1% - 0.3%



Posted in March and met with claims I had no idea what I was talking about. Ridiculed for my math and analysis.

Hate to say I told you so but.......



So you told us you were wrong?
It's not 0.1-0.3%

Right now the reported IFR is 5.8%
We're now starting to get more clarity on the actual #infected because there have been 15million tests - and about 1 in 10 have the virus from those tests.
That would give a real IFR of about 0.6% - some 6 times more deadly than the flu and fully warrants (some ) of the measures taken.
That said - such an ESTIMATE is based on the '1 in 10' test results being true for the whole population and that is unlikley as the tests are still skewed towards those with symptoms. It's more likely the rate is higher than 0.6%.

As it stands the #deaths forecast under the suppression scenario is proving to be accurate. They said 100-200k in the US , and right now it's just shy of 100k.

If people such as yourself had been listened to, the spread of the virus would be much worse. Even at the 0.6% rate, much deadlier than the flu, your decision - adopted - would have cost about an addiitonal 200,000 lives. Once again, I am glad that people such as yourself were ignored.

edit on 26/5/2020 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Grenade

I've said between .5 and .8%

I feel terrible for anyone I might have scared into submission.


LOL, you said repeatedly the death rate was the same as the flu.
You were out by a factor of 6 - at least.



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Grenade

I've said between .5 and .8%

I feel terrible for anyone I might have scared into submission.


LOL, you said repeatedly the death rate was the same as the flu.
You were out by a factor of 6 - at least.



Quote please, liar



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: RadioRobert

Wow, it's amazing how people with no medical degree actually had the numbers correct and the fascist apologists that had one were totally incorrect.


It's almost like I read preprints to see what actual epidemiologists were saying instead of listening to the tv... And those people were right. Shocking.



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Grenade

I've said between .5 and .8%

I feel terrible for anyone I might have scared into submission.


LOL, you said repeatedly the death rate was the same as the flu.
You were out by a factor of 6 - at least.



Quote please, liar


So it was a different person with your username pushing the Stanford study then?
Your support of that study is littered all over this thread.

You still can't come to terms with the fact that Corona is massively more deadly than the flu (at least 6 times, but I suspect much higher) and stopping the spread was the right call.

As I said to another poster - I am very glad that no one of any note listened to you. Many lives have been saved by NOT taking your approach.

As it stands you will just have to live with the fact that your views were rejected. You made your arguments and you lost the argument.



posted on May, 26 2020 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Nice to see you go from being certain the IFR would be 2 percent, to now saying well we had the lockdown so that proves your side won the argument even though even the cdc says your 2 percent number is way overblown.

You have been so arrogant and so wrong on this thread it is honestly great for a laugh.



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 165  166  167    169  170 >>

log in

join