I think Covid is/has been being spread on purpose - Inductive reasoning

My reasoning is because 3 people are in custody for deliberately starting wild fires in Oregon. All 3 are over 40, well past the age of rebellion. 2 of them have criminal histories of doing bad things for money. None of them have anything visibly to gain.

Inductively: what are the odds they spontaneously decided, separately and independently, in the same week, to go out and commit a crime that offers no financial reward? (Unless someone were paying them to do it.)



Next: Consider if someone out there has the means, and disposition, to pay ex cons to start wild fires. Why wouldn't they also pay ex cons to deliberately spread infection?

Morally it's the same outcome: people can die.

Practically, it's a very easy crime to get away with.

Some homeless looking 40 year old guy boards a bus and sprays his seat with a clear liquid, claiming he wants to "disinfect" the seat. But it's not disinfectant. - how would you prove that? And even if you did prove that, how would you prove he knew it?



Even if you walk around all day in a full space suit, there is no way you can prevent covid spreading if people are doing it on purpose.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Then they sure aren't doing a good job of it considering allegedly only 2% of the population has tested positive.

It's a low range military bio weapon designed to instill fear into the 2020 elections.

Lots at stake worldwide not just the U.S. 🎭

I doubt that anybody is "paying cons" to spread the infection, but I suspect that there may be some intentional spreading happening.

We're continuously threatened with (not warned about) an ominous "second wave." I could easily see that being intentionally initiated. The motive is there. The method is there. Why not? They are definitely that desperate.

a reply to: incoserv

No actual spreading needed, just scary stories and hearsay and fear mongering. We should be all outdoors enjoying Autumn.

I'd think they'd pick a better virus to spread. This one is certainly not a big population reducer.

If you get infected, your chances, according to the CDC, of surviving are as follows:

Age Group Probability of Survival

0-19: 99.997%

20-49: 99.98%

50-69: 99.5%

70+: 94.6%


Note: CDC overstate the danger , so those numbers above are not right, allmost all dies because of other health conditions or just the normal flu /influenza .

I used to watch "worldoemeters" back in February, to see how many cases there were. Looking at its statistics by state, I found it odd that, while many states still only had between 1 and 5 cases, every single state in the country, without exception had at least one case.

Almost like the disease knew where the state lines were.

originally posted by: tamusan
I'd think they'd pick a better virus to spread. This one is certainly not a big population reducer.

And also killing people who are past the age of reproduction has no long term affect on population growth.

I think they were trying to kill the economy, not the population.

The wild fires also weren't population reducers. But they forced a lot of people who were already in a tough place financially, to evacuate their homes.

If the population were dropping dramatically, that would likely also prevent the economy from collapsing. The dead "don't need it anymore".

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Why would you need anyone to spread a very easily transmittable virus?

And even if you did, why are you targeting Argentina and India?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Why would you need anyone to spread a very easily transmittable virus?

Obviously because that's one of the lies.

I don't see an easily transmutable virus I tell ya that.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Why would you need anyone to spread a very easily transmittable virus?

And even if you did, why are you targeting Argentina and India?

To prevent people from simply wearing masks, and having it die out. Oregon was nearly clean in July, and then presto!!! a sudden breakout!!! Brought the number of cases higher than they'd ever been.

The theory of covid's spread doesn't predict that. If you are using measures that are good enough to bring the number of cases down to a number you can count to on your fingers, it should go on to die completely out in your region.

Think about it. If 100 cases doesn't go on to become 200, because you're containing it well, then 1 case shouldn't blow up to 20.

Any measures that can cause the number of infected to decline at all, should also make you virtually indestructible to the possibility of a new breakout.

........... unless some homeless looking dude decides to wipe down his bus seat with "disinfectant", and 50 people go on to sit in that seat. Even if all 50 wear masks, they're still touching infected material.

The news media is the worst "spreader" of Covid-19.

For example, today CNN screamed blood murder about President Trump's plan to hold 2 outdoor rallies Wisconsin this weekend, "amid a staggering 100% growth in Covid-19 hospitalizations!"

Wisconsin has 6 million residents.

The number of Covid-19 hospital patients increased from 300 to 683 between Sept 1st and Sept 30th.

Source: covidtracking.com...

The number of Wisconsin residents hospitalized for Covid-19 increased from .005% to .010%.

Yeah...a 100% increase of almost nothing is still almost nothing.

Because CNN is the largest American TV network on the planet, it is America's #1 ENEMY.

After President Trump's re-election, I hope he presses AT&T to jettison this terrorist group, masquerading as a news organization.