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.

 

What do you think the threshold for the actions we see from the government should be

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: shooterbrody

We should not accept these sorts of policies without the government answering basic questions.

You disagree. Fair enough.


Doctors: Coronovirus is even now overwhelming healthcare systems and we are out of ICU beds and ventilators and are having to pick and choose who lives and dies. The spread must be slowed down.

Grambler: Yeah but what is the probability of that happening? Why should we take serious measures to slow the spread if you cant tell us probabilities..




posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

23000 to 59000 people died of the flu this year

www.cdc.gov...

Up to 710000 people hospitalized

And this year was not abnormal


I wonder why we didn’t shut down the country over this every year?



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Doctors: this could get bad and we could run out of beds

Ringsofsaturn: my god them please give the government a blank check to find performuarts centers, suspend habeus corpus, and destroy the economy! If doctors are concerned about beds we must accept anything the government wants to do to prevent that!



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

23000 to 59000 people died of the flu this year

www.cdc.gov...

Up to 710000 people hospitalized

And this year was not abnormal


I wonder why we didn’t shut down the country over this every year?


Because as has already been explained repeatedly this has the potential to be much more deadly.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Oh fair enough.

Yep of the potential is there we might as wel not question anything and give the government a blank check

This is why o asked the threshold question that almost no one would answer

Because they just trust daddy government

If they say it’s necessary to spend trillions and lock people down and collapse the economy, it must be the right answer

No need to ask what there threshold was

And nest year what the flu season has the potential to be more deadly, we can do it all over again!
edit on 26-3-2020 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Oh fair enough.

Yep of the potential is there we might as wel not question anything and give the government a blank check

This is why o asked the threshold question that almost no one would answer

Because they just trust daddy government

If they say it’s necessary to spend trillions and lock people down and collapse the economy, it must be the right answer

No need to ask what there threshold was

And nest year what the flu season has the potential to be more deadly, we can do it all over again!


The flu doesnt generally overwhelm hospitals and force doctors to choose who lives and dies..

Are you blind? Its happening now and you keep pretending its some kind of unlikely hypothetical.. WHY?



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Oh fair enough.

Yep of the potential is there we might as wel not question anything and give the government a blank check

This is why o asked the threshold question that almost no one would answer

Because they just trust daddy government

If they say it’s necessary to spend trillions and lock people down and collapse the economy, it must be the right answer

No need to ask what there threshold was

And nest year what the flu season has the potential to be more deadly, we can do it all over again!


You can keep posting the same straw man arguments over and over again if you want.

Anyone who doesn't want to revel in their own ignorance can look at what is actually happening in the real world.

These are exceptional circumstances, that doesn't mean giving the government a blank cheque or not asking questions. It does mean accepting reality, something you seem unwilling to do.
edit on 26-3-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 08:07 AM
link   
We need to remember the government works for us, we do not work for them. COVID-19 is not the issue, the real issue is the economy, COVID-19 was and is the straw that broke the camels back. Yes, the virus is real, people are dying, and we need to keep our distance. Now the fed has taken advantage of the situation again and introduced unlimited printing. Basic economics will tell you unlimited printing does not work. Unlike 2008 this is an entire system collapse and not just real estate.

In the next few weeks or months look for the states and the federal government to increase restrictions. People will slowly figure out what is really going on and at that point things will get worse. They will start leaving their homes and meeting regardless of quarantines. Gold, silver, gas, water, heirloom seeds, and cash will be needed short term. Long term cash will be almost worthless.

Remember during the Louisiana purchase one ounce of silver bought around 40 acres, look for that to happen again.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MPoling
Remember during the Louisiana purchase one ounce of silver bought around 40 acres, look for that to happen again.


Not likely.. there was a continent full of empty land at that time that the government desperately wanted settled and a very small population, of course land was cheap.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

I can see your point, supply and demand. I do think that will be the case again though, depending on the area of course. In central Florida non commercial land not connected to the beaches go for an average of 30k an acre. But once again this is because of the real estate bubble. Once that bubble pops and the real price of silver and gold are revealed it maybe close to one ounce buying 4-5 acres.

The issue with gold and silver has been the paper market. Future contracts, ect.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MPoling
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

I can see your point, supply and demand. I do think that will be the case again though, depending on the area of course. In central Florida non commercial land not connected to the beaches go for an average of 30k an acre. But once again this is because of the real estate bubble. Once that bubble pops and the real price of silver and gold are revealed it maybe close to one ounce buying 4-5 acres.

The issue with gold and silver has been the paper market. Future contracts, ect.


I own gold and silver but dont believe these bogus claims of precious metal dealers. Lets say the dollar does crash and silver is suddenly worth $1000 an oz (all else being equal) the cost of land in dollars will go up an equivalent amount. Your buying power will be preserved but you will not suddenly be able to buy a farm with a handful of silver you paid $20 an oz for.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

He's complaining about the non-existence of replies in another thread now.

Forget the nuance, he has it all figured out already. There must be a price-tag we could attach to human souls, and he's here to find out how low that number really is.

I don't think it's a bad thing to see that the economy has a higher priority than the people, at least now we know how thoroughly positivist some of our more radicalized ATSliens really are. I'd be surprised if this wouldn't end in a fascist coup of sorts to "safe the economy" somewhere on this stupid planet of apes.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

He's complaining about the non-existence of replies in another thread now.

Forget the nuance, he has it all figured out already. There must be a price-tag we could attach to human souls, and he's here to find out how low that number really is.

I don't think it's a bad thing to see that the economy has a higher priority than the people, at least now we know how thoroughly positivist some of our more radicalized ATSliens really are. I'd be surprised if this wouldn't end in a fascist coup of sorts to "safe the economy" somewhere on this stupid planet of apes.




No you are right.

We cant put a price on human souls, so the government must collapse the economy keep us under lockdown, and spend trillions to prevent any death.

Flu season will be coming next year, its kills tens of thousands a year. Better lock down the country and spend trillions over it, right?

Heck if we are allowed to leave our houses, people may die of car wrecks. Well the government has to lock every down perpetually then, right?

If you disagree, how dare you put a price tag on human souls!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ScepticScot

He's complaining about the non-existence of replies in another thread now.

Forget the nuance, he has it all figured out already. There must be a price-tag we could attach to human souls, and he's here to find out how low that number really is.

I don't think it's a bad thing to see that the economy has a higher priority than the people, at least now we know how thoroughly positivist some of our more radicalized ATSliens really are. I'd be surprised if this wouldn't end in a fascist coup of sorts to "safe the economy" somewhere on this stupid planet of apes.




No you are right.

We cant put a price on human souls, so the government must collapse the economy keep us under lockdown, and spend trillions to prevent any death.

Flu season will be coming next year, its kills tens of thousands a year. Better lock down the country and spend trillions over it, right?

Heck if we are allowed to leave our houses, people may die of car wrecks. Well the government has to lock every down perpetually then, right?

If you disagree, how dare you put a price tag on human souls!!!


How many deaths are you willing to accept before action? Or are you not willing to answer your own question?



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I did. I said right off the gate, I think that had the number without these government actions been 50000 dead, I would been against these government actions

And I never said no action should be taken.

We could get ventilators, inform people of how to protect themselves, create masks and hospital beds and many more things all without taking people rights away, shutting down large sectors of the economy, and spending trillions of dollars.

I have said that I wouldnt be for any of those types of government actions, which I feel will do more harm than good, until there was a high probablity something like 1 million people would die without taking these horrible draconian measures.

Now you may disagree with me, but at least I ansewered which is more than any [erson cheering on these government actions has done.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

I did. I said right off the gate, I think that had the number without these government actions been 50000 dead, I would been against these government actions

And I never said no action should be taken.

We could get ventilators, inform people of how to protect themselves, create masks and hospital beds and many more things all without taking people rights away, shutting down large sectors of the economy, and spending trillions of dollars.

I have said that I wouldnt be for any of those types of government actions, which I feel will do more harm than good, until there was a high probablity something like 1 million people would die without taking these horrible draconian measures.

Now you may disagree with me, but at least I ansewered which is more than any [erson cheering on these government actions has done.


Ventilators take time to build. Masks take time to produce, hospitals need built and medical staff need trained.

The whole point of all the mitigation measures is to create enough time for these things to happen.

The best evidence that was available put the the death toll in the US at 2.2 million with out taking action.
edit on 27-3-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

2.2 million?

Did you see dr birx;s interview yesterday?

She said there is no proof for any of those models.

There is no proof we are in danger of running out of ventilators as we have heard

his is why the government should have answered these basic questions before these actions.

But fine, lets assume that number is true,; without these actions 2.2 million would have died.

So then with these actions, how many can we expect to die?

Dr ferguson in britian said 500 thousand would die there, but only 20 thousand with there actions,.

As that what we are suggesting here? A 96 percent reduction in deaths?

How we will know if government actions resulted in so many fewer deaths, or if the intial prediction was so gorssly over blown, especially because we didnt demand the government answer these basic questions in the first place?



And lastly, I answered the threshold question, so will you?

Wpuld you recomend these actions to prevent 50000 deaths? If not what would be your threshold?



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

2.2 million?

Did you see dr birx;s interview yesterday?

She said there is no proof for any of those models.

There is no proof we are in danger of running out of ventilators as we have heard

his is why the government should have answered these basic questions before these actions.

But fine, lets assume that number is true,; without these actions 2.2 million would have died.

So then with these actions, how many can we expect to die?

Dr ferguson in britian said 500 thousand would die there, but only 20 thousand with there actions,.

As that what we are suggesting here? A 96 percent reduction in deaths?

How we will know if government actions resulted in so many fewer deaths, or if the intial prediction was so gorssly over blown, especially because we didnt demand the government answer these basic questions in the first place?



And lastly, I answered the threshold question, so will you?

Wpuld you recomend these actions to prevent 50000 deaths? If not what would be your threshold?


And despite the same straw man you keep throwing about no one is suggesting you can't question.

Professor Ferguson was very clear that the 500k figure for the UK was based on no action being taken. You can't claim that because action was taken that the actions were themselves an over reaction. That is absurd.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 10:28 AM
link   
O

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

2.2 million?

Did you see dr birx;s interview yesterday?

She said there is no proof for any of those models.

There is no proof we are in danger of running out of ventilators as we have heard

his is why the government should have answered these basic questions before these actions.

But fine, lets assume that number is true,; without these actions 2.2 million would have died.

So then with these actions, how many can we expect to die?

Dr ferguson in britian said 500 thousand would die there, but only 20 thousand with there actions,.

As that what we are suggesting here? A 96 percent reduction in deaths?

How we will know if government actions resulted in so many fewer deaths, or if the intial prediction was so gorssly over blown, especially because we didnt demand the government answer these basic questions in the first place?



And lastly, I answered the threshold question, so will you?

Wpuld you recomend these actions to prevent 50000 deaths? If not what would be your threshold?


Sorry missed your last line.

isn't just about number of deaths but I think if had been 50k estimate for UK with no actions then actions taken could have been different.
edit on 27-3-2020 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 06:08 PM
link   
What's going on with the New Orleans mayors.?

This one is mad that the federal government did not order her to close down Mardi Gras.

mobile.twitter.com...

Another New Orleans Mayor botched the response to Hurricane Katrina.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join