Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[dada]

"Yes, the cat is amused because it believes it's chasing something that can actually be caught. The cat is being deceived"

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of both the cat and the human. It has nothing to do with belief vs actuality and everything to do with the magic of sports.

[Belligerent Savant]

BelSav wrote:

Irrespective of lab creation, the coordinated actions taken by govts in response (lockdowns, closure of small/mid-sized businesses, suppression of practical treatments, mass distribution of experimental 'vaccines', etc) to a virus that is, indeed, on par or perhaps slightly more virulent than influenza (once the numbers are stripped of misleading/inflated metrics) are more responsible for DEATH and lower-quality of life than the virus itself.

You've repeatedly claimed to not know the real death toll of the virus, but here you claim it's about the same, or slightly worse than the flu (assuming that by 'virulent' you mean 'death toll', otherwise the comparison in meaningless). The flu has statistics going back ages (35K dead on average the last ten years), so now you do have a pretty good idea after all?

Lets say it's like a really bad flu season and put the death toll at 100K. That leaves just under half a million extra dead not accounted for. Can you break down what killed them, or if you believe the number is bogus, can you supply the real one?

I've touched on this numerous times within the 170 pages here, citing articles, charts, papers. The last article I posted went into some detail. Did you read through it? What are your thoughts?
Also: referencing a recent chart I shared here a page back, Re: in-home deaths in illinois compared to prior years, particularly the small percentage (relative to total count) attributed to Covid. Thoughts?

"Yes, the cat is amused because it believes it's chasing something that can actually be caught. The cat is being deceived"

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of both the cat and the human. It has nothing to do with belief vs actuality and everything to do with the magic of sports.

Watching sports requires intelligence! Indeed, it seems i've underestimated humans. Understandable in these times, given the observations of late when I step out for a walk on a lovely Spring day and see humans jogging and bike-riding while fully muzzled. Quite stupid, that.

Edit to add: I have far more faith in the intuitive intelligence of cats -- and animals broadly -- than the average human. I think the average human has the potential for insightful intelligence but is often quite susceptible to conditioning and herd mentality/groupthink, which as we've clearly seen over the past ~year (and in certain points in history, such as 1930s Germany), allows for the germination of sinister agendas and devastating outcomes.

[DrEvil]

I'm not sifting through 170 pages, that's why I asked you. You've posted so much on the subject that I figured you have a pretty good idea what you're talking about. Surely you have enough breadcrumbs by now to assemble a whole loaf?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Ah, but I have - at least enough for a discerning mind to review and assess.

It's within this thread and out there in the wild for those interested in seeking it out and assessing for themselves.

Again, the most recent article, while focused on the UK, comes quite close to touching on all the key points raised earlier, in parts. I'd suggest checking it out and raising any specific objections, which can then be discussed further.

Given the occlusion in play, nothing is certain, of course.

But much can be gleaned.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

One other (hopefully brief) point:


- I'm not obligated to provide 'executive summaries' or 'presentations' of my views/position on this, or any topic. This applies to every member here, of course;

- Anyone operating under the premise that I'm trying to "convince" anyone here of anything is misreading my intent. My objective, at all times, is to share viewpoints and thoughts -- yes, sometimes strongly, perhaps -- for anyone else to read, ignore, or potentially include for consideration or incorporate into their own views, or not;

I didn't start with my current position on covid. I've arrived where I am now after a year+ of research/analysis/etc. Is it susceptible to bias? Of course, but I have self-awareness of my potential bias, and aim to keep that in mind and/or re-calibrate when needed. Part of the reason I come here is to test my positions, and also to read and digest takes from others, which in turn may refine or revise my position further. My point is I didn't start with my currently held views; I arrived to them after assessing available data points.

How many do the same? How many hold on to views based on existing political sensibilities or related worldviews, rather than assessing them based purely on the raw data/available info?

The activities over the past year+ have rendered many 'traditional'* political positions/talking points moot.

While there's been a consistent shift outwards from both the 'left' and 'right' over the years, we are currently observing self-described "leftists" essentially accepting -- and at times, cheering on -- totalitarian measures under the guise of (ostensible) 'public health'.

/end rant


*political positions have been evolving over time -- some would argue at an accelerated clip more recently, in part due to social media and various conditioning mechanisms. A 'conservative' or 'liberal' living in the 60s is certainly not the same as one that identifies as such today.

[DrEvil]

.

Ah, but I have - at least enough for a discerning mind to review and assess.

It's within this thread and out there in the wild for those interested in seeking it out and assessing for themselves.

Again, the most recent article, while focused on the UK, comes quite close to touching on all the key points raised earlier, in parts. I'd suggest checking it out and raising any specific objections, which can then be discussed further.

Given the occlusion in play, nothing is certain, of course.

But much can be gleaned.

That's what I'm asking for: what have you gleaned? What's your assessment?

Another thing: I'm fully aware that I might be trapped in a filter bubble and have it all wrong, and I'm curious if you have considered the same possibility for yourself?

[Joe Hillshoist]

There appears to be a worldwide propaganda campaign that claims the virus is harmless or non existent that seems targeted at aged people, the people who are potentially most vulnerable to the virus and the people with the highest potential economic cost to "society". This is a separate issue to the various totalitarian responses to the virus and is being ignored on this board.

It would certainly appear that this idea that COVID is nothing to worry about is a storyline that certainly pacifies any questioning or investigation into any potential Malthusian inspired release of the virus.

No one here is claiming covid is "nothing to worry about". The author of the last article i posted above isn't claiming it either.

It's an over-simplification and gross misrepresentation to suggest this.

The core point is this virus does not, and has never, justified the extent and duration of lockdowns, ineffective mask use directives, or any of the unprecedented mandates/related measures imposed by govts.

Your commentary completely ignores the devastating impact extended lockdowns have had on LIVES and livelihoods -- and it will continue to have devastating impact in the years ahead.

Irrespective of lab creation, the coordinated actions taken by govts in response (lockdowns, closure of small/mid-sized businesses, suppression of practical treatments, mass distribution of experimental 'vaccines', etc) to a virus that is, indeed, on par or perhaps slightly more virulent than influenza (once the numbers are stripped of misleading/inflated metrics) are more responsible for DEATH and lower-quality of life than the virus itself.

There is indeed a culling in progress, undertaken by govts over the past year (a scaled-up and expedited version of historical activity, double-timed): extended shutdowns causing mass transfer of wealth; stripping of privacy rights and civil liberties; continued lower quality of health care and over-reliance on pharma drugs, all of which in turn have their ripple effects; fear of seeking necessary treatment in hospitals, especially for those seriously ill; suicide, depression, overdoses -- all have contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to restrictive lockdown measures and related propagation of fear. Keeping people indoors for extended periods without access to fresh air, sunlight, in-person social interaction, and/or means for exercise/movement, all contribute to worsening health prospects.

And then, of course, there's the mass-scale coercion to participate in clinical trials of experimental drugs without informed consent.

Poor or struggling sick people with increasingly limited options don't have long-term survival rates, needless to say.

Those of you that continue to train your entire focus on covid alone are like cats chasing the red dot projected on the wall by its owner, who amuses himself by observing the cat's futile attempts to 'catch' a red dot that will never be caught.

Do better. Or wait another 3 years and revisit this post.

You still haven't answered this question:

If there are no symptoms, then the disease cannot have contributed towards a death.

Why?



Are you avoiding it?

[Joe Hillshoist]

.
Yes, the cat is amused because it believes it's chasing something that can actually be caught. The cat is being deceived.

You're right, though: it's an imperfect comparison as no harm will ever come to the cat, and the owner enjoys offering entertainment for the cat (ah, but does the owner 'enjoy' offering this entertainment because they see the cat is entertained, or do they enjoy observing how easily a cat can be deceived? Perhaps a bit of both; depends on the owner).

This is more about belief vs. actuality.

How do you know what the cat is thinking? Did you ask it?

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Moving the following talking point(s) to this thread:

.
Re: realistic #s for COVID: perhaps impossible to calculate or determine -- ever -- given how metrics have been occluded, manipulated and conflated, among other sorcery conjured by modern-day wizards, AKA 'modeling statisticians', bureaucrats, or simply those following orders. Last year there was a report that as much as ~94% of the deaths listed as 'covid' were due at least in part to more serious illness, but the deceased tested positive at the time of death -- or had flu-like symptoms. This figure sounds right to me. The more time that passes the clearer it is that we've been egregiously scammed, particularly since they've yet to isolate the covid-19 strain.

DrEvil:
Yet another lie/distortion. If someone with a compromised immune system or a bad heart get covid and dies then it was covid that tipped them over the edge and killed them, even though they already had underlying conditions. Without covid they could have gone on for years with proper care. All that report said was that sick and frail people were more at risk.

That is a grossly simplified and just as much disinfo, or more than what you claim. Most of the dead don’t have autopsies performed unless there is something suspicious or questionable. MANY elderly that die, which is by far the largest segment of alleged deaths by the Rona, would not have had an autopsy in the U.S. anybody with elderly in their family would know this based on personal experience.

Without an autopsy the docs can fill out whatever they want and with great latitude based on the new instructions the CDC published in 2020 allowing enormous latitude in putting the Rona as the primary cause. What do you imagine the administrators of these hospitals is going to be pushing hard for?

$$$$$

The more deaths attributed to Rona the bigger the reimbursement check from there Feds. Medicine is a business.

This is garbage. Dr Evil is right. People with AIDS or any immune compromised situation can die of the cold, a tiny infection most wouldn't notice or any number of other conditions that a healthy immune system would cope with. So what killed them. Compromised immune system or the other conditions?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Yes, the cat is amused because it believes it's chasing something that can actually be caught. The cat is being deceived.

You're right, though: it's an imperfect comparison as no harm will ever come to the cat, and the owner enjoys offering entertainment for the cat (ah, but does the owner 'enjoy' offering this entertainment because they see the cat is entertained, or do they enjoy observing how easily a cat can be deceived? Perhaps a bit of both; depends on the owner).

This is more about belief vs. actuality.

How do you know what the cat is thinking? Did you ask it?

This is quickly getting stupid.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Ah, but I have - at least enough for a discerning mind to review and assess.

It's within this thread and out there in the wild for those interested in seeking it out and assessing for themselves.

Again, the most recent article, while focused on the UK, comes quite close to touching on all the key points raised earlier, in parts. I'd suggest checking it out and raising any specific objections, which can then be discussed further.

Given the occlusion in play, nothing is certain, of course.

But much can be gleaned.

That's what I'm asking for: what have you gleaned? What's your assessment?

Another thing: I'm fully aware that I might be trapped in a filter bubble and have it all wrong, and I'm curious if you have considered the same possibility for yourself?

I've expressed plenty of thoughts on this topic. I'm not regurgitating for your benefit. You don't even need to dig that deep to find it.
Is this the last ditch effort of those that no longer have an argument left?

Read my last commentary, upthread. I already raised the point about my potential bias. I assess and revise as needed.

I'd wager i dedicated far more time than you have analyzing this topic. So it's not a fair or valid comparison.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Moving the following talking point(s) to this thread:

.
Re: realistic #s for COVID: perhaps impossible to calculate or determine -- ever -- given how metrics have been occluded, manipulated and conflated, among other sorcery conjured by modern-day wizards, AKA 'modeling statisticians', bureaucrats, or simply those following orders. Last year there was a report that as much as ~94% of the deaths listed as 'covid' were due at least in part to more serious illness, but the deceased tested positive at the time of death -- or had flu-like symptoms. This figure sounds right to me. The more time that passes the clearer it is that we've been egregiously scammed, particularly since they've yet to isolate the covid-19 strain.

DrEvil:
Yet another lie/distortion. If someone with a compromised immune system or a bad heart get covid and dies then it was covid that tipped them over the edge and killed them, even though they already had underlying conditions. Without covid they could have gone on for years with proper care. All that report said was that sick and frail people were more at risk.

That is a grossly simplified and just as much disinfo, or more than what you claim. Most of the dead don’t have autopsies performed unless there is something suspicious or questionable. MANY elderly that die, which is by far the largest segment of alleged deaths by the Rona, would not have had an autopsy in the U.S. anybody with elderly in their family would know this based on personal experience.

Without an autopsy the docs can fill out whatever they want and with great latitude based on the new instructions the CDC published in 2020 allowing enormous latitude in putting the Rona as the primary cause. What do you imagine the administrators of these hospitals is going to be pushing hard for?

$$$$$

The more deaths attributed to Rona the bigger the reimbursement check from there Feds. Medicine is a business.

This is garbage. Dr Evil is right. People with AIDS or any immune compromised situation can die of the cold, a tiny infection most wouldn't notice or any number of other conditions that a healthy immune system would cope with. So what killed them. Compromised immune system or the other conditions?

Prior to 2020, it was not uncommon at all to die of a flu, a cold, or pneumonia when already seriously ill with another illness, such as cancer. The world wasn't turned upside down because of this, was it? You're saying lockdowns are necessary because the terminally ill died of flu-like symptoms?

Insipid argument.

As i've typed before, believe whatever the F you want about what we've experienced since 2020. Good luck with it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Also BelS, what do you know about RT-PCR tests and false positives?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Prior to 2020, it was not uncommon at all to die of a flu, a cold, or pneumonia when already seriously ill with another illness, such as cancer. The world wasn't turned upside down because of this, was it? You're saying lockdowns are necessary because the terminally ill died of flu-like symptoms?

Insipid argument.

As i've typed before, believe whatever the F you want about what we've experienced since 2020. Good luck with it.

There are reports coming out of India right now are that young people and children are being admitted to hospital and dying at much higher rate than the first wave.

Other reports are saying that isn't true, its just that because more people are infected the number of dead young people and kids is higher tho the proportion remains the same.

Is this "The terminally ill dying of flu-like symptoms"?

Also waiting for an answer as to why asymptomatic cases don't lead to death.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I discussed cycle thresholds and the flaws of the PCR tests before, numerous times within this thread. Even the NY times covered the probability of false positives with PCR tests for any Ct over ~30 -- and the majority are indeed over 30 -- though it's difficult to obtain stats on this as Ct is rarely reported or included when results are doled out. They can be throttled up or down to achieve desired results.

Back to the endemic nature of this virus. The below chart showcases states with, and without, lockdowns.