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.

 

HUGE - The CDC Reveals that Only 6 Percent of Covid-19 Deaths Are Caused Solely by Covid-19.

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And HIV doesn't kill anyone by itself...

no but when it comes AIDS it makes you vulnerable to ANY DISEASE. that is what kills you .. but we dont say HIV "killed someone" as SOLE CAUSE like your doing with covid.. wow out of the gate you torpedo your own argument.. well done

The desperation in attempting to downplay covid 19 is now so obvious its almost comical.

no. what is comical is you attempting to claim covid is very deadly in face of some CLEAR FACTS.. 80 percent have zero or such small symptoms that medical intervention (or even testing) isnt needed AND SURVIVE FINE. that 99.8 of average health SURVIVE . that the young are LEAST VULNERABLE TO DEATH from covid. also that unless you have KNOWN MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS/COMPROMISE you will most likely be fine. except also for just plain (if not religious) bad luck or (if religious) just your time. Torpedo your argument second time and with a childish cheap shot as well

If you have a non life threatening respiratory condition which the becomes fatal to Covid19 then both wll be listed as causes of death.

actually that ISNT WHAT IS BEING DONE.. they list it as A COVID DEATH.. not "death by XX disease" with covid as a factor. along with (do you REALLY NEED A LINK when you can look it up) that the CDC said you could call a death "if suspected or symptoms of covid with OR WITHOUT testing " aka confirming it not needed. guess you missed that also.. torpedo three of argument and clearly rant three as well

Some people with life threatening conditions will also have died earlier because of catching covid19. I am sure most of them would still have wanted the months and years left to then however.

did you study seeing the future from ms cleo? do you have a crystal ball? how then can you claim that if covid wasnt around they would have died later from something else? not only a rant but a narcissistic one at that.



I could go on and on with FACTS how your comments are just an emotional (and overused) rant.
but many here (including myself) already have and on multiple OP .

but if you want to continue to be called out posting as an emotional but fact lacking fool by all means post away

scrounger


We count HIV deaths as people dying from complications arising from HIV. They very much still died because they had HIV.

Do you know what % of the US population have health conditions that would put them at higher risk of covid 19?


well you could answer your own question with a google search. so what is your point again? oh btw i bet the same amount vulnerable to covid would also be vulnerable to influenza, pneumonia and a whole host of other pathogens and situations.. so again what is your point?

Even if the 99.8% was true ( and that seems to be the absolute best case scenario) then that could still work out at about 500k deaths before herd immunity was reached. The IFR is only part of how deadly something is

the influenza "common flu" virus has a similar if not higher mortaity rate as covid. as well as (outside of MAYBE a longer infection period but that also is up for debate) as infection rate.. along with it kills on average for last three years between 60 to 80 thousand. but no "pandemic" on that.. now before you say "less death count" might i point out that ALREADY the numbers (as shown even by OP) are questionable at best.. to include lately no one seems to die from it since covid.. add to it your claim of 500k deaths is NOT SUPPORTED BY FACT. do i need to remind you that the "models" called for one to two MILLION DEATHS by now (to which they stated would be if we did as we are doing now)? sorry but your numbers claim is also emotional ranting

If I am really not sure what you are talking about with 'Crystal ball's. Are you now claiming people wouldn't die if they didn't contract covid? You may want to re try that paragraph.

sigh... nice attempt at "accuse someone of the actions you are taking" . we DONT KNOW if they would have died sooner, same or later if covid didnt happen. but I am not claiming they would have as was the claim that they wouldnt have if covid existed... you may want to retry reading it without a clear bias against anything that counters covid panic... BTW you do know that on average before the covid outbreak that in america 7 to 8000 people die DAILY from all types of situations... so in that perspective and KNOWING covid does replace other pathogens IN SOME CASES the specific method of death overall isnt that unusual...

The emotional ones are those trying to downplay the severity of the virus against all evidence because of their own political beliefs. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.


oh the "hurt feeling" emotional comment.. a desperate but clearly seen deflection that you cannot debate your point with facts and counters, so go for the clearly CHILDISH emotional personal comments.

sorry charlie but that card is declined to to overuse.

but to directly address the only adult counter comment "downplay the severity of the virus against all evidence".
which part of
80 percent have no or few symptoms that they dont get medical aid or testing AND RECOVER FINE
99.8 (if healthy or NOT unlucky) survive
that the biggest risk falls on those medically compromised that are vulnerable to all sorts of pathogens

is "emotional" and "against all evidence"?

what is truly bad is your own arguments torpedo your own case

scrounger




posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6
Everybody has got a story hell my uncle got it, 75 years old already had a spot on his lungs years ago, guess what a month and half later he is fine, yea he had 4 days in the hospital. So quit saying all of think it's a hoax. Is it really that far fetched that some people in power would take advantage of this? Play up the negatives, yes we heard the most at risk were the elderly and ones with secondary issues but damn sure nobody said at anytime that 94% deaths had secondary issues.

Hell the added stress, worry and concern probably killed 20000 on it's own then you have domestic violence and abuse, drug abuse alcohol abuse suicides all on the increase. Even if the unlikelihood nobody pushed any buttons to prolong it, we will be living with the consequences for a long time, much longer than it had to be. If we had just quarantined the sick and those at risk first to see what would happen.


nailed it

but people for whatever reason (be agenda driven, fear , or frankly willful ignorance) dont want to deal in FACTS...

sadly there are currently a large group of them .

what worries me more if this does (no guarantee sadly) we FINALLY TREAT IT for what it is not what it could/may/models say/ect say it is what new "doom porn" will they fall for/ support next.

scrounger



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And HIV doesn't kill anyone by itself...

no but when it comes AIDS it makes you vulnerable to ANY DISEASE. that is what kills you .. but we dont say HIV "killed someone" as SOLE CAUSE like your doing with covid.. wow out of the gate you torpedo your own argument.. well done

The desperation in attempting to downplay covid 19 is now so obvious its almost comical.

no. what is comical is you attempting to claim covid is very deadly in face of some CLEAR FACTS.. 80 percent have zero or such small symptoms that medical intervention (or even testing) isnt needed AND SURVIVE FINE. that 99.8 of average health SURVIVE . that the young are LEAST VULNERABLE TO DEATH from covid. also that unless you have KNOWN MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS/COMPROMISE you will most likely be fine. except also for just plain (if not religious) bad luck or (if religious) just your time. Torpedo your argument second time and with a childish cheap shot as well

If you have a non life threatening respiratory condition which the becomes fatal to Covid19 then both wll be listed as causes of death.

actually that ISNT WHAT IS BEING DONE.. they list it as A COVID DEATH.. not "death by XX disease" with covid as a factor. along with (do you REALLY NEED A LINK when you can look it up) that the CDC said you could call a death "if suspected or symptoms of covid with OR WITHOUT testing " aka confirming it not needed. guess you missed that also.. torpedo three of argument and clearly rant three as well

Some people with life threatening conditions will also have died earlier because of catching covid19. I am sure most of them would still have wanted the months and years left to then however.

did you study seeing the future from ms cleo? do you have a crystal ball? how then can you claim that if covid wasnt around they would have died later from something else? not only a rant but a narcissistic one at that.



I could go on and on with FACTS how your comments are just an emotional (and overused) rant.
but many here (including myself) already have and on multiple OP .

but if you want to continue to be called out posting as an emotional but fact lacking fool by all means post away

scrounger


We count HIV deaths as people dying from complications arising from HIV. They very much still died because they had HIV.

Do you know what % of the US population have health conditions that would put them at higher risk of covid 19?


well you could answer your own question with a google search. so what is your point again? oh btw i bet the same amount vulnerable to covid would also be vulnerable to influenza, pneumonia and a whole host of other pathogens and situations.. so again what is your point?

Even if the 99.8% was true ( and that seems to be the absolute best case scenario) then that could still work out at about 500k deaths before herd immunity was reached. The IFR is only part of how deadly something is

the influenza "common flu" virus has a similar if not higher mortaity rate as covid. as well as (outside of MAYBE a longer infection period but that also is up for debate) as infection rate.. along with it kills on average for last three years between 60 to 80 thousand. but no "pandemic" on that.. now before you say "less death count" might i point out that ALREADY the numbers (as shown even by OP) are questionable at best.. to include lately no one seems to die from it since covid.. add to it your claim of 500k deaths is NOT SUPPORTED BY FACT. do i need to remind you that the "models" called for one to two MILLION DEATHS by now (to which they stated would be if we did as we are doing now)? sorry but your numbers claim is also emotional ranting

If I am really not sure what you are talking about with 'Crystal ball's. Are you now claiming people wouldn't die if they didn't contract covid? You may want to re try that paragraph.

sigh... nice attempt at "accuse someone of the actions you are taking" . we DONT KNOW if they would have died sooner, same or later if covid didnt happen. but I am not claiming they would have as was the claim that they wouldnt have if covid existed... you may want to retry reading it without a clear bias against anything that counters covid panic... BTW you do know that on average before the covid outbreak that in america 7 to 8000 people die DAILY from all types of situations... so in that perspective and KNOWING covid does replace other pathogens IN SOME CASES the specific method of death overall isnt that unusual...

The emotional ones are those trying to downplay the severity of the virus against all evidence because of their own political beliefs. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.


oh the "hurt feeling" emotional comment.. a desperate but clearly seen deflection that you cannot debate your point with facts and counters, so go for the clearly CHILDISH emotional personal comments.

sorry charlie but that card is declined to to overuse.

but to directly address the only adult counter comment "downplay the severity of the virus against all evidence".
which part of
80 percent have no or few symptoms that they dont get medical aid or testing AND RECOVER FINE
99.8 (if healthy or NOT unlucky) survive
that the biggest risk falls on those medically compromised that are vulnerable to all sorts of pathogens

is "emotional" and "against all evidence"?

what is truly bad is your own arguments torpedo your own case

scrounger


My points are based on facts ( and supported by the evidence and views of the overwhelming number of experts on the field) .

Just making claims based on your 'feelz' dies not make something a fact. Even if covid 19 had the same IFR as flu ( and it doesn't your are wrong about that) it would still be much deadlier. I am sure you can work why.

According to CDC flu kills Between 12k & 60k a year on the US based on last ten years. Even with the mitigation measure covud has killed many times that already. Again the facts don't back your feelings on the subject.

As pointed out even 99.8% survival rate (which is unproven assertion on your part) would still result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Sorry I know you like to think you are the side of logic and facts here but unfortunately for you the evidence is overwhelming the other way.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Do you know what % of the US population have health conditions that would put them at higher risk of covid 19?


well you could answer your own question with a google search. so what is your point again? oh btw i bet the same amount vulnerable to covid would also be vulnerable to influenza, pneumonia and a whole host of other pathogens and situations.. so again what is your point?

Even if the 99.8% was true ( and that seems to be the absolute best case scenario) then that could still work out at about 500k deaths before herd immunity was reached. The IFR is only part of how deadly something is

the influenza "common flu" virus has a similar if not higher mortaity rate as covid. as well as (outside of MAYBE a longer infection period but that also is up for debate) as infection rate.. along with it kills on average for last three years between 60 to 80 thousand. but no "pandemic" on that.. now before you say "less death count" might i point out that ALREADY the numbers (as shown even by OP) are questionable at best.. to include lately no one seems to die from it since covid.. add to it your claim of 500k deaths is NOT SUPPORTED BY FACT. do i need to remind you that the "models" called for one to two MILLION DEATHS by now (to which they stated would be if we did as we are doing now)? sorry but your numbers claim is also emotional ranting

If I am really not sure what you are talking about with 'Crystal ball's. Are you now claiming people wouldn't die if they didn't contract covid? You may want to re try that paragraph.

sigh... nice attempt at "accuse someone of the actions you are taking" . we DONT KNOW if they would have died sooner, same or later if covid didnt happen. but I am not claiming they would have as was the claim that they wouldnt have if covid existed... you may want to retry reading it without a clear bias against anything that counters covid panic... BTW you do know that on average before the covid outbreak that in america 7 to 8000 people die DAILY from all types of situations... so in that perspective and KNOWING covid does replace other pathogens IN SOME CASES the specific method of death overall isnt that unusual...

The emotional ones are those trying to downplay the severity of the virus against all evidence because of their own political beliefs. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.


oh the "hurt feeling" emotional comment.. a desperate but clearly seen deflection that you cannot debate your point with facts and counters, so go for the clearly CHILDISH emotional personal comments.

sorry charlie but that card is declined to to overuse.

but to directly address the only adult counter comment "downplay the severity of the virus against all evidence".
which part of
80 percent have no or few symptoms that they dont get medical aid or testing AND RECOVER FINE
99.8 (if healthy or NOT unlucky) survive
that the biggest risk falls on those medically compromised that are vulnerable to all sorts of pathogens

is "emotional" and "against all evidence"?

what is truly bad is your own arguments torpedo your own case

scrounger


My points are based on facts ( and supported by the evidence and views of the overwhelming number of experts on the field) .


sigh again what "facts" that counter the 80 percent showing no symptoms, 99.8 percent survival and only higher risk known medical compromise ? just because you keep repeating your montra isnt facts.. but if you want to keep claiming facts in face of this proof and post like a fool/troll be my guest.. doesnt help your crediblilty not a whit.

Just making claims based on your 'feelz' dies not make something a fact. Even if covid 19 had the same IFR as flu ( and it doesn't your are wrong about that) it would still be much deadlier. I am sure you can work why.

if you had PROOF how its more deadly you would have presented it.. oh wait you havent.. because then it can be checked for accuracy and if found lacking challenged. so how again is it more deadly than the influenza virus? still waiting..

According to CDC flu kills Between 12k & 60k a year on the US based on last ten years. Even with the mitigation measure covud has killed many times that already. Again the facts don't back your feelings on the subject.

As pointed out even 99.8% survival rate (which is unproven assertion on your part) would still result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

um here is your proof of the 99.8 survival rate ... www.clickondetroit.com...

btw do you really want me to go though the numbers of other diseases and survivlal rates that one is exposed to yearly? along with the fact that all "estimates" of the covid deaths have BEEN WRONG.. i bet you wish the "models" at the begining of this "pandemic" stated clearly between one to two MILLION would die even doing what we are by now? again what PROOF do you have of the previous 500 thousand you stated earlier?

Sorry I know you like to think you are the side of logic and facts here but unfortunately for you the evidence is overwhelming the other way.

i have (and others) quoted facts and now have added sources.

the balls in your court

scrounger



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: scrounger
the influenza "common flu" virus has a similar if not higher mortaity rate as covid.

No it doesn't. The CDC has been inflating those numbers for decades in order to push people to get the jab.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

Your proof of the 99.8% survival rate is an article
saying ..



Using the current numbers, that means more than 30 million people could have been infected, which would make the infection fatality rate 0.4% -- meaning 99.6% of people survive the virus.

The problem is even a fatality rate of 0.4% can be crippling. If the virus was allowed to spread to everyone in the country, more than 1.3 million people would die.



The article is article is also arguing strongly in favour of the preventative measures. Again facts don't support your claims.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

All we have to do is outsmart them.

And judging by the quality of their administrative skills (since the early 1900s) I'd have to say outsmarting them wont be too difficult.

The only reason we're screwed here is because people blindly trusted in them. Their lies arent especially challenging to unravel or anything.

They got real lucky, because they aren't very skilled or intellectually adept.

Now that trust is waning they have to crush our Renaissance of thought asap or their whole power structure will collapse inward upon them.

They have to murder tons now because their time is running out. Anyone with a brain is onto them at this point.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: scrounger

Your proof of the 99.8% survival rate is an article
saying ..



Using the current numbers, that means more than 30 million people could have been infected, which would make the infection fatality rate 0.4% -- meaning 99.6% of people survive the virus.

The problem is even a fatality rate of 0.4% can be crippling. If the virus was allowed to spread to everyone in the country, more than 1.3 million people would die.



The article is article is also arguing strongly in favour of the preventative measures. Again facts don't support your claims.


first never said the article or myself is against "preventative measures"
nice try at deflection ... ah no not that well done

I and others are for "reasonable and FACT DRIVEN" preventative measures.

second

facts do support my claim that the virus has a VERY LOW (this article is .4 or less than one percent by over half) fatality rate.

so not to be feared if you should get it.

third...
your still "estimating" vs ACTUAL NUMBERS

by your previous claim / math under your percentage you claim 500,000 COULD (key word COULD) DIE .

the current number is 150,000 and as the OP showed from the CDC ITSELF that 6 percent of ALL CLAIMED covid deaths were SOLE CAUSE covid.

so that death number is considerably less.

add to it the FACT that the amount of "infected" (found by massively increased testing) vs death is REDUCING FURTHER the mortality rate / INCREASING survival rate.

in short the numbers are no where near climbing as you keep claiming.

do I need to remind you that the "claims by experts" said it was a 10 percent or more mortality rate and the "models" predicted one to two MILLION DEATHS even "doing what we are".

in short your "estimates" have been DEAD WRONG (big pun intended) all though this .

yet you still claim your "facts " are accurate ..

in short NO ESTIMATE has been even remotely close

in fact even taking 150,000 at face value is still well below 1 to 2 million and not even close to your 500,000

in fact if you want to look even more foolish in your "facts claim" that the rate of death wont even make 500,000 if it continues at same rate (it wont btw) by end of the year...

so keep ranting "my facts trump your emotion" drivel ....

the only one looking foolish BY PUBLISHED FACTS is you..

scrounger

btw were are the FACTS again its more deadly and the death rate will get near 500,000?



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

The the article you provided to back up your claim gives a fatality rate twice what you claimed.

Let's deal with that prior to moving to the rest of your claims.

Do you now acknowledge your number was incorrect or do you want to try a different source?



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The whole thing has been politically rigged as suspected πŸ˜ƒ

Now they need to pencil in the real stats πŸ˜ƒ



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Didn't we already know this?

Skydivers parachute fails to open.
Covid 19 blamed.

The best jokes are the ones that are true.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The whole thing has been politically rigged as suspected πŸ˜ƒ

Now they need to pencil in the real stats πŸ˜ƒ



What they did is death penalty crimes.

Millions of lives destroyed, thousands forced into suicide or worse.

I demand 10,000 heads on pikes.
Minimum.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Large bag of deceitful and unfair determinations from day one for political warfare. All the makeshift hospitals were torn down as soon as they went up. The naval med ships docked then left within two weeks. Yet the doom and gloom of hospitals saying they are really struggling. Well then why did you tear down the tent hospitals and send the ships away. It's a hoax perpetrated on the public by politicians, government agencies and medical institutions on a grand scale.

As for stats, pointless even bringing it up. First it was going to be 2 million dead in the US. It's not even 200K after 7 months but it's still regarded with the same crisis mentality. It's nowhere near 2 million and probably not even 100K but we will never know since hospitals have been using a broad brush reporting deaths from it for monetary gain and nobody is checking their claims.

If I had to guess, 190 million people got duped by this hoax.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: carewemust

For Hell's sake cut the BS.


Look, I got one of my guys in his 30s in the hospital that has lost half his heart function due to covid attacking his heart and other organs.

Yeah, Covid might not kill him but the damage covid did to his heart may.



Covid-19 does push people with severe pre-existing conditions over the edge. There's no doubt about that.

This thread merely clarifies that 94% of people who die WITH Covid-19 in America have those conditions, and 78% of them are over age 65.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The whole thing has been politically rigged as suspected πŸ˜ƒ

Now they need to pencil in the real stats πŸ˜ƒ


That will come shortly after President Trump is re-elected.

By that time, the FLU shot will be more important to most Americans than the Covid-19 shot.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6
Everybody has got a story hell my uncle got it, 75 years old already had a spot on his lungs years ago, guess what a month and half later he is fine, yea he had 4 days in the hospital. So quit saying all of think it's a hoax. Is it really that far fetched that some people in power would take advantage of this? Play up the negatives, yes we heard the most at risk were the elderly and ones with secondary issues but damn sure nobody said at anytime that 94% deaths had secondary issues.

Hell the added stress, worry and concern probably killed 20000 on it's own then you have domestic violence and abuse, drug abuse alcohol abuse suicides all on the increase. Even if the unlikelihood nobody pushed any buttons to prolong it, we will be living with the consequences for a long time, much longer than it had to be. If we had just quarantined the sick and those at risk first to see what would happen.


The problem will the theory that this is being played up is that there is no real rational plus side for that to be done.

Quarantining only those who are vulnerable sounds great in theory, the problem with that is that we didn't full know who was vulnerable and and even we did it would be impossible to adequately isolate them.




What the hell, that pretty much was the game plan previously, take care of the elderly and those at risk you know common sense....



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6
Everybody has got a story hell my uncle got it, 75 years old already had a spot on his lungs years ago, guess what a month and half later he is fine, yea he had 4 days in the hospital. So quit saying all of think it's a hoax. Is it really that far fetched that some people in power would take advantage of this? Play up the negatives, yes we heard the most at risk were the elderly and ones with secondary issues but damn sure nobody said at anytime that 94% deaths had secondary issues.

Hell the added stress, worry and concern probably killed 20000 on it's own then you have domestic violence and abuse, drug abuse alcohol abuse suicides all on the increase. Even if the unlikelihood nobody pushed any buttons to prolong it, we will be living with the consequences for a long time, much longer than it had to be. If we had just quarantined the sick and those at risk first to see what would happen.


The problem will the theory that this is being played up is that there is no real rational plus side for that to be done.

Quarantining only those who are vulnerable sounds great in theory, the problem with that is that we didn't full know who was vulnerable and and even we did it would be impossible to adequately isolate them.




What the hell, that pretty much was the game plan previously, take care of the elderly and those at risk you know common sense....


Unfortunately the elderly and vulnerable don't all live by themselves, and those that do will often need additional support. Isolating only those vulnerable was never a practical plan at least without a lot more preparation and knowledge of the virus.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The whole thing has been politically rigged as suspected πŸ˜ƒ

Now they need to pencil in the real stats πŸ˜ƒ



They need to prop up their propaganda. This kind of thing
used to be done by posting flyers on trees, light poles and
traffic stops. Now they use the internet and paid posters
facilitated by corrupt NGO's and Super PACS that are extensions
of the Democrat Party aka the DNC.

Maybe they are starting to worry since they want to cancel
the presidential debates?



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6
Everybody has got a story hell my uncle got it, 75 years old already had a spot on his lungs years ago, guess what a month and half later he is fine, yea he had 4 days in the hospital. So quit saying all of think it's a hoax. Is it really that far fetched that some people in power would take advantage of this? Play up the negatives, yes we heard the most at risk were the elderly and ones with secondary issues but damn sure nobody said at anytime that 94% deaths had secondary issues.

Hell the added stress, worry and concern probably killed 20000 on it's own then you have domestic violence and abuse, drug abuse alcohol abuse suicides all on the increase. Even if the unlikelihood nobody pushed any buttons to prolong it, we will be living with the consequences for a long time, much longer than it had to be. If we had just quarantined the sick and those at risk first to see what would happen.


The problem will the theory that this is being played up is that there is no real rational plus side for that to be done.

Quarantining only those who are vulnerable sounds great in theory, the problem with that is that we didn't full know who was vulnerable and and even we did it would be impossible to adequately isolate them.




What the hell, that pretty much was the game plan previously, take care of the elderly and those at risk you know common sense....


Unfortunately the elderly and vulnerable don't all live by themselves, and those that do will often need additional support. Isolating only those vulnerable was never a practical plan at least without a lot more preparation and knowledge of the virus.


So then lets isolate the entire population what BS,and act like the elderly and the sick didn't have the same Fing issues as isolating them alone. I mean hell what happened with the full shutdown, people with elderly family either moved in with them or took care of them same with the at risk . We still do protocols wear masks wash hands like you have to do for anybody elderly or at risk doing chemo treatments. For instance in my family one of us could have watched my Mom even though that wasn't needed and the others could have worked instead we all were put out of work have gone from 5 houses in the family to 3 and it will likely be 2 or less by the end of next year.

Then you will have 7 older to elderly adults that were supporting themselves for 40 years all out of work or working jobs making minimal wages. There are millions in the same boat or worse.



posted on Aug, 27 2020 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6
Everybody has got a story hell my uncle got it, 75 years old already had a spot on his lungs years ago, guess what a month and half later he is fine, yea he had 4 days in the hospital. So quit saying all of think it's a hoax. Is it really that far fetched that some people in power would take advantage of this? Play up the negatives, yes we heard the most at risk were the elderly and ones with secondary issues but damn sure nobody said at anytime that 94% deaths had secondary issues.

Hell the added stress, worry and concern probably killed 20000 on it's own then you have domestic violence and abuse, drug abuse alcohol abuse suicides all on the increase. Even if the unlikelihood nobody pushed any buttons to prolong it, we will be living with the consequences for a long time, much longer than it had to be. If we had just quarantined the sick and those at risk first to see what would happen.


The problem will the theory that this is being played up is that there is no real rational plus side for that to be done.

Quarantining only those who are vulnerable sounds great in theory, the problem with that is that we didn't full know who was vulnerable and and even we did it would be impossible to adequately isolate them.




What the hell, that pretty much was the game plan previously, take care of the elderly and those at risk you know common sense....


Unfortunately the elderly and vulnerable don't all live by themselves, and those that do will often need additional support. Isolating only those vulnerable was never a practical plan at least without a lot more preparation and knowledge of the virus.


So then lets isolate the entire population what BS,and act like the elderly and the sick didn't have the same Fing issues as isolating them alone. I mean hell what happened with the full shutdown, people with elderly family either moved in with them or took care of them same with the at risk . We still do protocols wear masks wash hands like you have to do for anybody elderly or at risk doing chemo treatments. For instance in my family one of us could have watched my Mom even though that wasn't needed and the others could have worked instead we all were put out of work have gone from 5 houses in the family to 3 and it will likely be 2 or less by the end of next year.

Then you will have 7 older to elderly adults that were supporting themselves for 40 years all out of work or working jobs making minimal wages. There are millions in the same boat or worse.


It wasn't a practical option. You can't sufficiently isolate vulnerable individuals if the virus is widespread, certainly not without a lot more time and preparation. There wasn't even sufficient PPE to cover hospitals never mind the level needed if you tried to isolate all vulnerable individuals.

You are also applying 2020 hindsight, there was insufficient data about who and how the virus affected.

If isolating only at risk individuals had been seen as a realistic option you really think governments wouldn't have preferred that?



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join