Lockdown Protestors

[henry quirk]

George Washington. "The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is that he will die on his feet rather before he will live on his knees."

So far it does seem like its only a matter of time until official governmental knee pads come back into style.

the glorious revolution isn't far away

-Imp

Yeah, it's gettin' close.

[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.

Look, I could not care less if 99% or more of the human population was wiped out. In fact I, the earth, and just about every animal on earth would be quite happy if that many human beings were wiped out. But what was the actual cause of death?

If what caused the death was corona virus, then that is the cause of death. Take it up with the doctor/s who are writing the death certificates if you are unhappy with it.

Also, if any one was going to die of old age, a heart attack, the flu, or any other condition a few months, a few weeks, or even a few minutes later, then besides the very fact that we will know, it also does not matter anyway. If someone dies with corona virus and that was what was said to cause the death, then without an autopsy, then that is it. If the truth be known it could be more than half of those who die in rest homes die of drug overdoses than of the actual cause written on the death certificate anyway. But that is how it is.

Now I am just using the numbers provided in this thread to look at them in relation to 'lock down protestors', which is what this thread is about.

At the rate the corona virus is spreading among human beings, then it is not hard to imagine how much more widespread this virus would be if lock downs were not made.

Anyone can protest all they want for all I care about being supposedly "locked down", but are they going to cry and blame someone or something else if someone close to them dies of the corona virus? Are they going to blame them self if they contracted the virus and then it was them who passed it onto the one that died? This would be like if the parent of an unvaccinated child that died of that preventable illness then cried and tried to blame someone or something else for that death.

By all means break the lock down laws for all I care because of greed and the love of money but whose fault is it if they get the corona virus?

Idiot. It makes a big difference when you take into account the comment that suggested that all the dead wouldn't have otherwise died and that the total would be ON TOP of the normal death rate. As you can see that is a flawed logic when you take into account that many of those who have died were close to death anyway. Their death would have been on either ONE or the OTHER of 'causes of death' lists.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why are people obsessed with 'booming economies' anyway? So called 'booming economies' gave us unprecedented homelessness and poverty, global warming, a global economy based on big business arse licking, and a few wankers with most of the money. Does anyone even know what a 'booming economy' means??

[Impenitent]

Why are people obsessed with 'booming economies' anyway? So called 'booming economies' gave us unprecedented homelessness and poverty, global warming, a global economy based on big business arse licking, and a few wankers with most of the money. Does anyone even know what a 'booming economy' means??

booming economy...

the war machine never stops...

-Imp

[Age]

But why did you change this obviously usa only number of deaths, and then measure it against a global number?

To illustrate that scale matters. Up-thread I cite the approximate number of global deaths yearly, and from 1-20-20 to whatever day it was I made the post.

U.S. beer virus numbers, global beer virus numbers: chicken feed by comparison.

Comparison to 'what' exactly?

If you consider over more than 50,000 MORE deaths in less than just three months in just one country is so called "chicken feed" by "comparison", then so be it?

But would you say the same if one of them was one of your loved ones who died? Would the "comparison" still be the same to you then?

Are you forgetting that the more than 50,000 deaths in the usa alone in just two months from the corona virus is on top of all the other death's?

Not at all: as I say, those numbers are padded. I'll lay five bucks on it.

Sounds like you do not have to much faith in your own scepticism.

there is still over another nine months to go

Sure. Let's see where we stand at year's end. Better yet, let's see what we know by year's end. I got another fiver sez a whole whack of folks are gonna be squirmin' tryin' to get out from under the crisis that never shoulda been.

But creating what was necessary to absolutely ruin the "economy", and absolutely ruin the distorted thinking that goes along with the love of money and the economy, was exactly not what just should have been done but was the actual reason WHY it was actually done.

People would not listen to what is actually true and right in Life, so they need to be taught a lesson about what is actually true and right in Life. And what better way than taking from people what they most cherish and desire so that they will learn their lesson, correct?

It would really help if you would just answer the clarifying questions Honestly,

Yeah, when you pull out that card (and you've done it to me before), I'm done. I'm bein' honest, answerin' honest. If you can't follow my examples, say so. Easier to, in effect, call me dishonest, I guess.

But you have to answer a question first before you could be either honest or even dishonest.

Well, I ain't havin' it.

'nuff said to you, in this thread, on this subject.

Another one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:



How quickly fear and indoctrination make people forget the value of freedom. Now the experts speak of the New Normal. The Creator will be the State. Life will be defined by serving the state. Liberty will be defined by the means for doing so and pursuit of happiness will be defined by paying the bills of the state for your own good.

I do prefer the old normal instead of this fear of the unknown has people surrendering freedom for the new normal in which the government takes care of you. This virus could be elininated by some voluntary common sense. But instead The government will provide state approved work to replace lost jobs. Creeping Slavery has its benefits for all those attracted to slavery and willing to sell their soul for thirty pieces of silver, tax deductable of course.

Nick_A: "This virus could be eliminated by some voluntary common sense."

You are too idealistic in this case and not realistic.

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.

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.

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.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

All you are saying is that you are incapable of the attitude necessary to sustain freedom. It is essential for you to sacrifice it for the illusion of a federal government willing to take over your responsibility ensuring slavery to it. You may be right but we don't have to bend over like trained dogs willfully proving our ignorance and gullibility. Those willing and able should fight to defend the human ideals expressed in the constitution.

Why should I agree with Benjamin Franklin?

I stated the evidence above;

• 1. 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.
  2. 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 view of the obvious evidence, you still want freedom.

Morally, the lockdown should be spontaneous and voluntarily by each individual.
It is like a village surrounded by passing dangerous wild animals, in this case, all individuals will restrict their freedom with the security of their own home until the danger has passed. There is no need for forcing.

It is your final view that there should not be any 'lockdown' in view of the evidence of the current threat from the Covid19 virus? All individuals are free to do whatever they want?

[henry quirk]

From George Avery, PhD. MPA

Dr. Avery has a PhD in Health Services Research from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, and has conducted significant research in the area of public health emergency preparedness, including five journal articles and two book chapters on the topic. He has served on several CDC advisory boards, including a panel on preparedness and emergency response centers, and consulted for the Defense Department on Medical Civic Action program doctrine. He has edited a special issue of the research journal Bioterrorism and Biodefense and served as a reviewer for the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management as well as Disaster Medicine and Public Health. He is a health services researcher with a medical analytics firm in the Midwest, and has formerly been a professor with the public health program at Purdue and worked from 1990-2000 with the Arkansas Department of Health’s Division of Public Health Laboratories.

We are seeing a panic reaction towards the newly emerged SARS-COVID-2 [Wuhan] epidemic, marked by panic buying of items including the much-joked about toilet paper, drastic action by political figures that often impinges on basic civil rights, and potentially devastating lasting economic impact. Much of this has been fueled by naïve and sensationalist reporting of fatality rates, such as a March 10, 2020 report by the Bloomberg news service that implies that 3.4-3.5% of infected individuals die (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... rus-update ). This has caused comparisons to the 1919 Influenza A:H1N1 pandemic and its 2.5% case fatality rate, which would qualify as a level 5 event on the CDC’s Pandemic Severity Index (PSI) and has led to a panicked overreaction worldwide. This case fatality rate, however, to a trained epidemiologist is obviously a significant overestimation of the actual fatality rate from the disease.

Ascertainment bias is a systematic error in statistical estimation of a population parameter resulting from errors in measurement - usually, in undermeasurement of a parameter. In this case, we are underestimating the actual number of cases in the population, which is the denominator in the calculation of the estimated case fatality rate. We are accurately estimating deaths, but to get the case fatality rate, we divide deaths by our estimate of the number of cases. Because that it too low due to measurement error, the estimate of the case fatality rate is too high.

For example, for a hypothetical disease if we have three deaths and observed ten cases, then the case fatality rate is 30% (3/10=0.3 or 30%). If, however, there were actually 300 cases, and only 10 were observed and reported, ascertainment bias has led us to underestimate the cases and overestimate the case fatality rate, which is actually 1% (3/300=0.01 or 1%).

In this case, in the absence of population-based screening to more actually estimate the total number of cases, we are only counting cases who are sick enough to seek health care -- almost all disease reports are made by healthcare professionals. We are missing people who have no more than a cold or who are infected but show no symptoms, individuals who almost certainly make up the overwhelming majority of actual cases. Thus, as in my hypothetical example, we are overestimating the case fatality rate for the disease.

There is, however, data available on SARS-COVID-2 [Wuhan] that allows us to get a better grasp on the actual case fatality rates for the virus.

One case is that of the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which achieved some notoriety from the well-publicized outbreak among its 3711 passengers and crew in January and February of 2006. Held aboard in constricted quarters, the population was subject to 3068 polymerase chain reaction (pcr) tests, which identified 634 individuals (17%) as infected, with over half of these infections (328 ) producing no symptoms. Seven infected passengers died, all of them over the age of 70. Adjusting the data for age, researchers at the London Institute of Tropical Medicine have estimated a fatality rate per infection (IFR) for the epidemic in China of 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-1.2%) during the same period. This is far below the earlier estimates of 3.4% or greater that were promoting panic over the epidemic. See Russell et al, Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for COVID-19 using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, MedRXIV 2020 at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 2.full.pdf.

South Korea has also implemented far wider population-based screening than the US, expanding their screening past suspected cases to voluntary population screening in geographies frequented by identified cases. As of March 15, as Stanford University economist Richard Epstein has noted, they performed over 235,000 tests and identified 8, 162 infections with 75 deaths (CFR=0.91%). Again, only about 10% of the deaths were in the population under the age of 60. See https://www.hoover.org/research/coronav ... t-pandemic . While their population screening efforts were far better than that of the United States, this was still not a broad-based screening effort (such as was used on the Diamond Princess), being biased because while it looked at a broader population, it still was enriched with cases by looking only at a segment of the population with a higher risk. Still, the case fatality rate is significantly below the 3.4% rate that caused the public panic.

What we are likely seeing, in my estimation, is an epidemic with a real case fatality rate between 0.2 and 0.5%, which is similar to the 1957 Asian Influenza A:H2N2 or 1968 Hong Kong Influenza A:H3N2 pandemics, which were also essentially virgin field respiratory epidemics. These pandemics rate, not as PSI5 events, but as PSI2 events on the CDC scale. They are certainly atypical and more severe than a PSI1 event (such as a routine seasonal flu epidemic), but not a shattering event like the 1919 influenza A:H1N1 pandemic. These earlier pandemics essentially tripled the number of deaths due to influenza experienced annually, and were posed little long-term economic or other damage to the population despite being handled without the extreme measures that are currently being adopted or proposed by political figures. Like those pandemic events, SARS-COVID-2 [Wuhan] has its most significant impact on elderly or otherwise compromised individuals, with few fatalities observed in the population under the age of 60. From what we have observed, half of those infected show no symptoms, 40% show mild symptoms such as a cold, and only about 2% advance to serious or critical illness. What is needed now is for politicians and the population to pause, take a deep breath, and address the epidemic with rational measures, such as social distancing of the older population, ring screening around identified cases, quarantine of identified infected individuals, and adequate hospital triage systems to protect other patients and health care staff rom infection in order to preserve our ability to treat the most severe cases. This is a strategy identified by myself and colleagues at Purdue in 2007 to ensure adequate capacity to deal with another true influenza pandemic, and it applies to this one as well.

-----

Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.

In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.

Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent per 100,000. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.

The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.

[Age]

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.

Look, I could not care less if 99% or more of the human population was wiped out. In fact I, the earth, and just about every animal on earth would be quite happy if that many human beings were wiped out. But what was the actual cause of death?

If what caused the death was corona virus, then that is the cause of death. Take it up with the doctor/s who are writing the death certificates if you are unhappy with it.

Also, if any one was going to die of old age, a heart attack, the flu, or any other condition a few months, a few weeks, or even a few minutes later, then besides the very fact that we will know, it also does not matter anyway. If someone dies with corona virus and that was what was said to cause the death, then without an autopsy, then that is it. If the truth be known it could be more than half of those who die in rest homes die of drug overdoses than of the actual cause written on the death certificate anyway. But that is how it is.

Now I am just using the numbers provided in this thread to look at them in relation to 'lock down protestors', which is what this thread is about.

At the rate the corona virus is spreading among human beings, then it is not hard to imagine how much more widespread this virus would be if lock downs were not made.

Anyone can protest all they want for all I care about being supposedly "locked down", but are they going to cry and blame someone or something else if someone close to them dies of the corona virus? Are they going to blame them self if they contracted the virus and then it was them who passed it onto the one that died? This would be like if the parent of an unvaccinated child that died of that preventable illness then cried and tried to blame someone or something else for that death.

By all means break the lock down laws for all I care because of greed and the love of money but whose fault is it if they get the corona virus?

Idiot. It makes a big difference when you take into account the comment that suggested that all the dead wouldn't have otherwise died and that the total would be ON TOP of the normal death rate.

But I never suggested any such thing.

Of course they would have died anyway.

As you can see that is a flawed logic when you take into account that many of those who have died were close to death anyway. Their death would have been on either ONE or the OTHER of 'causes of death' lists.

If they do not die in the same year or in the same measured period, then they would not be counted. When they were going to die, without corona virus, is unknown. This is because they died of corona virus.

"Close to death" is very relative.

You are also 'close to death' and your death is going to be on either ONE or the OTHER of 'cause of death' lists as well. If your death is on the corona virus "side" of the death list, then that will be an earlier death than "normal" and so your death will also be on top of the "normal" death list.

The death rate always remains the same. That is; for every human born, then there will be another human death. Whether that is sooner or later is dependent upon if they die of the corona virus if not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Look, I could not care less if 99% or more of the human population was wiped out. In fact I, the earth, and just about every animal on earth would be quite happy if that many human beings were wiped out. But what was the actual cause of death?

If what caused the death was corona virus, then that is the cause of death. Take it up with the doctor/s who are writing the death certificates if you are unhappy with it.

Also, if any one was going to die of old age, a heart attack, the flu, or any other condition a few months, a few weeks, or even a few minutes later, then besides the very fact that we will know, it also does not matter anyway. If someone dies with corona virus and that was what was said to cause the death, then without an autopsy, then that is it. If the truth be known it could be more than half of those who die in rest homes die of drug overdoses than of the actual cause written on the death certificate anyway. But that is how it is.

Now I am just using the numbers provided in this thread to look at them in relation to 'lock down protestors', which is what this thread is about.

At the rate the corona virus is spreading among human beings, then it is not hard to imagine how much more widespread this virus would be if lock downs were not made.

Anyone can protest all they want for all I care about being supposedly "locked down", but are they going to cry and blame someone or something else if someone close to them dies of the corona virus? Are they going to blame them self if they contracted the virus and then it was them who passed it onto the one that died? This would be like if the parent of an unvaccinated child that died of that preventable illness then cried and tried to blame someone or something else for that death.

By all means break the lock down laws for all I care because of greed and the love of money but whose fault is it if they get the corona virus?

Idiot. It makes a big difference when you take into account the comment that suggested that all the dead wouldn't have otherwise died and that the total would be ON TOP of the normal death rate.

But I never suggested any such thing.

Of course they would have died anyway.

As you can see that is a flawed logic when you take into account that many of those who have died were close to death anyway. Their death would have been on either ONE or the OTHER of 'causes of death' lists.

If they do not die in the same year or in the same measured period, then they would not be counted. When they were going to die, without corona virus, is unknown. This is because they died of corona virus.

"Close to death" is very relative.

You are also 'close to death' and your death is going to be on either ONE or the OTHER of 'cause of death' lists as well. If your death is on the corona virus "side" of the death list, then that will be an earlier death than "normal" and so your death will also be on top of the "normal" death list.

The death rate always remains the same. That is; for every human born, then there will be another human death. Whether that is sooner or later is dependent upon if they die of the corona virus if not.

There was an earlier post from someone referring to deaths on top of the death rate......

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nick_A: "This virus could be eliminated by some voluntary common sense."

You are too idealistic in this case and not realistic.

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.

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.

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.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

All you are saying is that you are incapable of the attitude necessary to sustain freedom. It is essential for you to sacrifice it for the illusion of a federal government willing to take over your responsibility ensuring slavery to it. You may be right but we don't have to bend over like trained dogs willfully proving our ignorance and gullibility. Those willing and able should fight to defend the human ideals expressed in the constitution.

Why should I agree with Benjamin Franklin?

I like that on several levels

[Sculptor]

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/

VT is not from the US. Looking at the stats from the website above it appears that VT may be right. It looks like even in the US the vast, overwhelming majority of deaths have been people with underlying health conditions. Although that's still pretty saddening and concerning.

VT did not say "vast majority", she said "ALL"

[Sculptor]

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/

Can you read? Do you mean 'FALSE' as in I DO know what the US stats are? Do you know what the word HERE means?

The virus does not give a fuck about where. The pattern is the same.
DO you know what ALL means, you f u c k i n g moron.?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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

Can you read? Do you mean 'FALSE' as in I DO know what the US stats are? Do you know what the word HERE means?

The virus does not give a fuck about where. The pattern is the same.
DO you know what ALL means, you f u c k i n g moron.?

YES, you FUCKING MORON

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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

VT is not from the US. Looking at the stats from the website above it appears that VT may be right. It looks like even in the US the vast, overwhelming majority of deaths have been people with underlying health conditions. Although that's still pretty saddening and concerning.

VT did not say "vast majority", she said "ALL"

And I mean ALL you fucking moron.

[Sculptor]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... o-21809445

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expe ... onditions/

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/31/teenager ... -12484546/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one- ... -08r6m0pf0