Lockdown Protestors

[henry quirk]

The reality is there is a percentile, I estimate a large % of people do not possess the necessary common sense to deal with this very sophisticated Covid19 virus.
In addition, this Covid19 virus is very complex [as evident] and virulent that a reasonable higher intelligence and wisdom is needed to deal with it.

In other words: people are stupid and need to be controlled.

The Tyrant's Justification.


By the look at the graphs, if no Lockdowns were implemented around the world, it is likely the Covid19 virus will have a free-run spree and infected a majority of humans [even pets] and other animals.
Thus if you were solely in charge in this case with your demand of absolute liberty, the human species could likely be extinct in time.

If vulnerable segments (the old, the immune system compromised) of any population were encouraged to hunker down, while the healthy remainder went about their business, group immunity would be largely be in place right now, no economics would be stressed overtly, and the death rate would be comparable to what it is now.

Panic and over-reaction was understandable in the beginning, but we now know the parameters of beer virus: time to stop bein' silly about it. Sure as shit, it's time to reassert liberties.


In this case, the government has to get involved and restrict the individual's freedom to some degree - there is no other way until a foolproof vaccine is available.
Despite what is promised in the Constitution, the citizen has to be pragmatic, sacrifice and make it an exception in this case.

In other words: 'you citizens, you don't have rights, you have privileges, and we elected folks (no smarter or wiser than you) will decide when you can exercise those privileges'.

Yeah, to hell with that noise.


a foolproof vaccine

There's never gonna be one.

Do we have full-proof vaccinations for the flu?

[henry quirk]

then that 61,000 is per year and the 46,000 is in just 2 months. Is this correct?

Nope. The flu number is for an average flu season; the beer virus number is for a comparable period of time (November or December of '19 to today).


"lockdown" in place

Already wrote about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns (they aren't consistent).


If corona virus has been in usa longer than first thought, then that means more have probably died from it than already counted.

None of the mortality data for the end of '19 to today shows an unexplained spike. More likely: fewer are dying of beer virus, not more.


And where are you getting this "information" from exactly?

For the formal policy: from the state of New York, by way of Governor Cuomo and other public officials, as well as formal documentation from the CDC. Research it.

[Nick_A]

VA
Post by henry quirk » Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:46 pm

The reality is there is a percentile, I estimate a large % of people do not possess the necessary common sense to deal with this very sophisticated Covid19 virus.
In addition, this Covid19 virus is very complex [as evident] and virulent that a reasonable higher intelligence and wisdom is needed to deal with it.

In other words: people are stupid and need to be controlled.

The Tyrant's Justification.

The Tyrants justification. Scary stuff. Worth a thread of its own.

[Age]

then that 61,000 is per year and the 46,000 is in just 2 months. Is this correct?

Nope. The flu number is for an average flu season; the beer virus number is for a comparable period of time (November or December of '19 to today).

But how could the CORONA virus number of deaths be for a period of time in the usa from November or December of 2019 to today if the first recorded case of corona virus death in the usa was in February 2020?

"lockdown" in place

Already wrote about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns (they aren't consistent).

If the lockdowns are or are not consistent, then this has no bearing on the fact that less people are traveling now than they were before. Obviously, if there were more flights around the world and more people moving about as they were prior to 2020, then the number of deaths would be higher.

Remember the numbers you are quoting are when the restrictions on travel have already been implemented. So, imagine if they were not.

If corona virus has been in usa longer than first thought, then that means more have probably died from it than already counted.

None of the mortality data for the end of '19 to today shows an unexplained spike. More likely: fewer are dying of beer virus, not more.

How is from zero corona virus deaths to over now 50,000 deaths (in however months) not a spike?

Are you suggesting that the people who were sick and/or who have died were not tested for CORONA virus, or are you suggesting that all the people who have died were put on the CORONA virus list?

Or, are you suggesting something else?

Is that number you provided of 49,000 deaths for absolutely everyone in usa, or just for those with the CORONA virus. 49,000 more deaths, in just two or three months, than what would have been if there was not a new virus among the population seems like a spike, and an explained spike, to me. But maybe you are seeing some thing that I am not?

And where are you getting this "information" from exactly?

For the formal policy: from the state of New York, by way of Governor Cuomo and other public officials, as well as formal documentation from the CDC. Research it.

So did that person and/or the other public officials explain the reasons why they are providing false information on how many have died from the CORONA virus?

[henry quirk]

But how could the CORONA virus number of deaths be for a period of time in the usa from November or December of 2019 to today if the first recorded case of corona virus death in the usa was in February 2020?

Ain't rocket science.

If Stanford University research is right, if antibody testing in California, and New York, is right, the beer virus has bean on U.S. soil longer than initially thought, and that first recorded death was not the first actual death.


If the lockdowns are or are not consistent, then this has no bearing on the fact that less people are traveling now than they were before. Obviously, if there were more flights around the world and more people moving about as they were prior to 2020, then the number of deaths would be higher.

Sure, but I'm not talkin' about the lockdown on international travel (which largely has been consistent), I'm talkin' about state by state stay at home orders which are largely inconsistently enforced and inconsistently abided by from state to state and from location to location within states.


Remember the numbers you are quoting are when the restrictions on travel have already been implemented. So, imagine if they were not.

Yeah, I was, am, talkin' about state lockdowns. I never mentioned international travel bans.


How is from zero corona virus deaths to over now 50,000 deaths (in however months) not a spike?

Is sixty thousand flu deaths, from zero, in a season a spike?


Are you suggesting that the people who were sick and/or who have died were not tested for CORONA virus, or are you suggesting that all the people who have died were put on the CORONA virus list?

In New York and New Jersey, where nearly half of all American beer virus deaths are happenin', if you die in a hospital treatin' beer virus victims, you will be counted as a beer virus death. That is: merely dyin' is NY and NJ is enough to add you to the beer virus death total.


Is that number you provided of 49,000 deaths for absolutely everyone in usa, or just for those with the CORONA virus. 49,000 more deaths, in just two or three months, than what would have been if there was not a new virus among the population seems like a spike, and an explained spike, to me. But maybe you are seeing some thing that I am not?

The 49,000 deaths was the U.S. beer virus total. It's no more a spike than the current flu death total.


So did that person and/or the other public officials explain the reasons why they are providing false information on how many have died from the CORONA virus?

Formally, they're just following CDC guidelines for how to handle record keeping in an overburdened medical settin'.

My paranoid, wrong-headedness tells it was just a CYA move, that they've been paddin' the numbers from the day they were told they'd get fed bucks for every beer virus death, by way of them new fancy trillion dollar giveaways.

[henry quirk]

VA
Post by henry quirk » Fri Apr 24, 2020 2:46 pm

The reality is there is a percentile, I estimate a large % of people do not possess the necessary common sense to deal with this very sophisticated Covid19 virus.
In addition, this Covid19 virus is very complex [as evident] and virulent that a reasonable higher intelligence and wisdom is needed to deal with it.

In other words: people are stupid and need to be controlled.

The Tyrant's Justification.

The Tyrants justification. Scary stuff. Worth a thread of its own.

Indeed.

[Age]

But how could the CORONA virus number of deaths be for a period of time in the usa from November or December of 2019 to today if the first recorded case of corona virus death in the usa was in February 2020?

Ain't rocket science.

If Stanford University research is right, if antibody testing in California, and New York, is right, the beer virus has bean on U.S. soil longer than initially thought, and that first recorded death was not the first actual death.

So, as I previously stated, the number of deaths will be higher.

Also, it does not matter how long CORONA virus has been around for, we are just looking at the numbers recorded, correct?

If yes, then the number of over 50,000 deaths from the first recorded death from CORONA virus in the usa, which was just under three months ago, would be a lot larger number now if "lockdown" was not enforced. Obviously if flights into usa were not reduced and if the movement of people were not reduced, then that 50,000 number would be larger. Does this make sense and is correct, to you?

That is not rocket science, correct?

If the lockdowns are or are not consistent, then this has no bearing on the fact that less people are traveling now than they were before. Obviously, if there were more flights around the world and more people moving about as they were prior to 2020, then the number of deaths would be higher.

Sure, but I'm not talkin' about the lockdown on international travel (which largely has been consistent), I'm talkin' about state by state stay at home orders which are largely inconsistently enforced and inconsistently abided by from state to state and from location to location within states.

States and locations do not make orders nor abide orders. Human beings make orders and human beings abide by them or disobey them, and YES that is very INCONSISTENT. For example, if you were ordered to stay at home, would you?

Now, what is it exactly that you want to point out in orders being consistent or inconsistent? So what?

Remember the numbers you are quoting are when the restrictions on travel have already been implemented. So, imagine if they were not.

Yeah, I was, am, talkin' about state lockdowns. I never mentioned international travel bans.

Okay, so what about "state lockdowns"?

How is from zero corona virus deaths to over now 50,000 deaths (in however months) not a spike?

Is sixty thousand flu deaths, from zero, in a season a spike?

Not if that is the average for year on year. So if the numbers are regularly about the same then that is obviously not a spike.

But if you add another fifty thousand deaths on top of that sixty thousand, from something else that did not exist a month or two early, then some would say that is a huge spike.

Are you suggesting that the people who were sick and/or who have died were not tested for CORONA virus, or are you suggesting that all the people who have died were put on the CORONA virus list?

In New York and New Jersey, where nearly half of all American beer virus deaths are happenin', if you die in a hospital treatin' beer virus victims, you will be counted as a beer virus death. That is: merely dyin' is NY and NJ is enough to add you to the beer virus death total.

Well how many of these people were there? And, what did they die of exactly if you KNOW it was not from the CORONA virus?

Is that number you provided of 49,000 deaths for absolutely everyone in usa, or just for those with the CORONA virus. 49,000 more deaths, in just two or three months, than what would have been if there was not a new virus among the population seems like a spike, and an explained spike, to me. But maybe you are seeing some thing that I am not?

The 49,000 deaths was the U.S. beer virus total. It's no more a spike than the current flu death total.

LOL So, because that number is not more than the current flu death, then to you it is not a spike correct?

Are you aware that it is about 49,000 MORE deaths than would have "normally" occurred? This means that is a 'spike' and an explainable spike.

Also, it is now over 50,000 deaths in less than three months, with lockdown. Obviously that number would be a lot higher without lockdown, and obviously that number, even with lockdown, will be a lot higher over 12 months.

So did that person and/or the other public officials explain the reasons why they are providing false information on how many have died from the CORONA virus?

Formally, they're just following CDC guidelines for how to handle record keeping in an overburdened medical settin'.

Are the cdc guidelines for how to handle record keeping in overburdened medical situations to provide true or false death records?

My paranoid, wrong-headedness tells it was just a CYA move, that they've been paddin' the numbers from the day they were told they'd get fed bucks for every beer virus death, by way of them new fancy trillion dollar giveaways.

Oh okay. If you said this previously, then I would have some clue as to what you are referring to.

OBVIOUSLY, most adult human beings will falsify records if they know they can obtain more money for just doing this. So, sure, then so called "american" people are increasing the numbers of deaths from CORONA virus. But, it was you previously who seemed against so called "chinese" people reducing the numbers of deaths from CORONA virus, correct?

If this is correct and are you against them for doing wrong things just to obtain money, then are you against yourself for the wrong things you do just to obtain money also?

[henry quirk]

But if you add another fifty thousand deaths on top of that sixty thousand, from something else that did not exist a month or two early, then some would say that is a huge spike.

Depends on how you look at the numbers. Fifty or 100 thousand additional deaths, measured against the global death numbers is miniscule. 50 or a hundred thousand new deaths measured against the average death rate for a population of 500 thousand is devastating.

-----

It seems to me: a lot of your concerns about my reasoning are addressed by posts in this thread (up-thread) and others in the beer virus subforum. Mebbe you wanna go review some of those posts.

-----

are you against yourself for the wrong things you do just to obtain money also?

What wrong things have I done to make a buck?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But if you add another fifty thousand deaths on top of that sixty thousand, from something else that did not exist a month or two early, then some would say that is a huge spike.

Depends on how you look at the numbers. Fifty or 100 thousand additional deaths, measured against the global death numbers is miniscule. 50 or a hundred thousand new deaths measured against the average death rate for a population of 500 thousand is devastating.

-----

It seems to me: a lot of your concerns about my reasoning are addressed by posts in this thread (up-thread) and others in the beer virus subforum. Mebbe you wanna go review some of those posts.

-----

are you against yourself for the wrong things you do just to obtain money also?

What wrong things have I done to make a buck?

Plus, I don't know about the US but here all of the deaths have been older people with serious underlying medical conditions. Frankly I think it's ridiculous to include a 96 year old in a rest home, with dementia and multiple health problems, in the coronavirus statistics. Nearly all of the people who have died here have been from a small number of aged care facilities.

[henry quirk]

Plus, I don't know about the US but here all of the deaths have been older people with serious underlying medical conditions. Frankly I think it's ridiculous to include a 96 year old in a rest home, with dementia and multiple health problems, in the coronavirus statistics. Nearly all of the people who have died here have been from a small number of aged care facilities.

Pretty much every set of numbers I look at confirms what you're sayin', veg.

Beer virus, in any population, takes the old and the compromised. Everyone else gets mild to moderate symptoms, or are asymptomatic.

As for the beer virus stats: the age and health definitely need recordin'. The more accurate the numbers, the more accurate the on-goin' assessment of what beer virus is actually doin'. With New York (and other locations, I reckon) paddin' the numbers indiscriminately, on- goin' assessments are divergin' from what is more and more.

As I say someplace in-forum: the most accurate numbers were early on before folks figured out how to make a buck on this mess. Now, the numbers are only approximates. Tomorrow, the numbers won't mean diddly.

[commonsense]

You can look at the numbers any way you like (stimulating discussion around the numbers, by the way), but quarantines were not intended to lower the total cases, deaths or death rates. Quarantines were not intended to rescue anyone other than healthcare workers.

By flattening the curve, it is possible that the same people would have become sick, but spread out over time. The numbers are significant only with respect to whether the healthcare system can match the need for treatment (I.e. PPE, ventilators, beds and personnel not to mention ambulances and morgue space).

[henry quirk]

Quarantines were not intended to rescue anyone other than healthcare workers.

Yeah, I know that.

The necessary consequence: delayin' group immunity and prolongin' the misery.

Robbin' Paul to pay Peter.

[commonsense]

Quarantines were not intended to rescue anyone other than healthcare workers.

Yeah, I know that.

The necessary consequence: delayin' group immunity and prolongin' the misery.

Robbin' Paul to pay Peter.

I couldna said it better mself

[Sculptor]

But if you add another fifty thousand deaths on top of that sixty thousand, from something else that did not exist a month or two early, then some would say that is a huge spike.

Depends on how you look at the numbers. Fifty or 100 thousand additional deaths, measured against the global death numbers is miniscule. 50 or a hundred thousand new deaths measured against the average death rate for a population of 500 thousand is devastating.

-----

It seems to me: a lot of your concerns about my reasoning are addressed by posts in this thread (up-thread) and others in the beer virus subforum. Mebbe you wanna go review some of those posts.

-----

are you against yourself for the wrong things you do just to obtain money also?

What wrong things have I done to make a buck?

Plus, I don't know about the US but here all of the deaths have been older people with serious underlying medical conditions..

FALSE
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ographics/

[commonsense]

So, could we have made it to where we are now without quarantining? Probably not.

We would have had even more cases to treat than we would have been ready for.

Without adequate stockpiles of masks, gloves, gowns, face shields, caps, ventilators, sampling swabs, transport medium, PCR equipment, drugs and vaccines we were set up to have more COVID 19 than we had resources to apply to the pandemic.

Could we have been right where we are or even better off without quarantines if we just had the supplies available?
Certainly.