Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[jhkim]

Anyone who thinks this is a real has been living under a rock or is literally retarded. Has there EVER been a "pandemic" in history where well people are told to stay home? How does that even make any sense? You quarantine sick people.

(...)

You asked if there has ever been a pandemic where well people are told to stay home. I gave some information about social distancing efforts in history. Do you not believe me about the history? Or do you believe that these restrictions did happen in history, but you just don't care about the answer?

I believe you're conflating a specific example with an overarching, national campaign to keep people home. Or do you want to show me evidence the entirety of the US was locked down in the past?

Your previous statement had nothing to do with city campaigns versus national campaigns. You asked whether historically there were campaigns like this in history, and I showed that there were.

A hundred years ago, international travel was slower and less common, which limited the speed with which diseases spread. Covid-19 has spread far faster than the 1918 flu epidemic, but our ability to deal with it has also changed. Our medicine and standards have improved a lot since 1918. So yes, there are differences in the campaign today compared to the past. In the U.S., we have organized on a state level rather than a city level to handle social distancing measures.

[Brad]

(...)


Your previous statement had nothing to do with city campaigns versus national campaigns. You asked whether historically there were campaigns like this in history, and I showed that there were.

A hundred years ago, international travel was slower and less common, which limited the speed with which diseases spread. Covid-19 has spread far faster than the 1918 flu epidemic, but our ability to deal with it has also changed. Our medicine and standards have improved a lot since 1918. So yes, there are differences in the campaign today compared to the past. In the U.S., we have organized on a state level rather than a city level to handle social distancing measures.

Okay, so there are historic examples where people were told to stay home in some cities. Does that magically make the practice valid? Or is it brain-dead stupid?

RE: social distancing, explain how the virus is magically immune if you're rioting, but if you go to a bar you'll catch it. You can get it at Walmart if you're not wearing a facemask, but not at a waterpark without a facemask. You can go to a restaurant if you wear a mask, but you're allowed to take it off to eat, but if you go to the bathroom you better put it back on quick before it somehow invades your body. Also, don't forget that if you dare question the government about arbitrarily shutting down your business while simultaneously allowing the government itself to operate at maximum capacity you'll be fined $250. Oh and also you don't need a mask to vote, for some reason. But it's mandatory when getting a haircut!

[jhkim]

Okay, so there are historic examples where people were told to stay home in some cities. Does that magically make the practice valid? Or is it brain-dead stupid?

Some historical practices were smart, and some were dumb. To find out effectiveness, we should look at studies on how diseases spread in cities historically -- which is what epidemiologists do. I linked earlier to a National Geographic article about the death rates in different cities compared to their social distancing.

cf. Also this National Geographic article on how different cities implemented social distancing in 1918, and how it affected the death tolls then.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

There can be differing views on this -- this is just one analysis. But it's at least looking at the history and trying to learn from it.

RE: social distancing, explain how the virus is magically immune if you're rioting, but if you go to a bar you'll catch it. You can get it at Walmart if you're not wearing a facemask, but not at a waterpark without a facemask. You can go to a restaurant if you wear a mask, but you're allowed to take it off to eat, but if you go to the bathroom you better put it back on quick before it somehow invades your body. Also, don't forget that if you dare question the government about arbitrarily shutting down your business while simultaneously allowing the government itself to operate at maximum capacity you'll be fined $250. Oh and also you don't need a mask to vote, for some reason. But it's mandatory when getting a haircut!

These strike me as questions in bad faith. Masks are just one of many possible safeguards, but they're useful and effective. They don't protect the wearer much - rather, they're mostly for protecting other people from you. If you're infected and don't realize it, a mask will limit how much you spread around the infection.

For example, protesters should wear masks and maintain distance, and not doing so increases the risk that they pass on infection. And sure, many liberals have shown bias in how they talk about conservative protests compared to liberal protests. Just like how conservatives show bias in how they talk about protests.

But political bias doesn't mean that no objective reality exists, or that the whole disease is a hoax.

[Brad]

These strike me as questions in bad faith.

That is LITERALLY what the orders state. I am not making this shit up. It looks and sounds retarded because it is. I couldn't make up crap this ridiculous if I tried. The only "bad faith" is people who continue to blindly accept what some fakeass scientists making millions of dollars off this scandemic says and ignore common sense.

I'll spell it out for you so you can easily understand: THIS IS A FUCKING HOAX.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/no-one-has-died-coronavirus/5717668

You gonna deny that those masks everyone is wearing do not reduce the risk of contracting a disease? Oh, it's a disclaimer on the fucking box itself.



How about the fact that the CDC itself says the number of cases is probably 10X what is being reported, which means mortality rate is waaaaaay lower than previously claimed?

Whatever, done responding to you about this. Live in fear and cower, IDGAF.

[GeekyBugle]

That is LITERALLY what the orders state. I am not making this shit up. It looks and sounds retarded because it is. I couldn't make up crap this ridiculous if I tried. The only "bad faith" is people who continue to blindly accept what some fakeass scientists making millions of dollars off this scandemic says and ignore common sense.

I'll spell it out for you so you can easily understand: THIS IS A FUCKING HOAX.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/no-one-has-died-coronavirus/5717668

You gonna deny that those masks everyone is wearing do not reduce the risk of contracting a disease? Oh, it's a disclaimer on the fucking box itself.



How about the fact that the CDC itself says the number of cases is probably 10X what is being reported, which means mortality rate is waaaaaay lower than previously claimed?

Whatever, done responding to you about this. Live in fear and cower, IDGAF.

Those are the same masks your dentist uses when examining your teeth, it's for your protection, so the dentists doesn't pass something to you.

The principle is the same, in case you've got the kungflu and don't know it yet you don't pass the Chinese virus as easy to others. Doesn't protect the wearer but those around him.

Which makes sense in closed spaces or crowded streets, not when you're far from other humans.

As for the true danger of the kungflu... I do believe that IF we ever are allowed to know the total numbers it will be proven to be a nothingburger.

[Brad]

Those are the same masks your dentist uses when examining your teeth, it's for your protection, so the dentists doesn't pass something to you.

The principle is the same, in case you've got the kungflu and don't know it yet you don't pass the Chinese virus as easy to others. Doesn't protect the wearer but those around him.

Which makes sense in closed spaces or crowded streets, not when you're far from other humans.

As for the true danger of the kungflu... I do believe that IF we ever are allowed to know the total numbers it will be proven to be a nothingburger.

So then why aren't they required when standing in line to get on a tube chute but bars are closed..?

[Kiero]

The Lancet, to much ballyhoo and left-leaning media cheering, publishes a study showing, purportedly, that the 'cocktail' (hydroxylchloroquine + zinc and something else I can't remember) isn't effective against Covid-19. Much hooting and sneering from the peanut gallery, since U.S. President Trump had suggested it as a possible treatment.

The Lancet "study" where they gave already gravely ill people lethal doses of hydroxylchloroquine to "prove" it didn't work, you mean?

It has a century since we've had a pandemic considered this bad,

This isn't even as bad as the 1968 flu, never mind 1918.

The principle is the same, in case you've got the kungflu and don't know it yet you don't pass the Chinese virus as easy to others. Doesn't protect the wearer but those around him.

Asymptomatic transmission is bollocks. People know they're ill when they're ill.

[HappyDaze]

Asymptomatic transmission is bollocks. People know they're ill when they're ill.

I disagree.

[Spinachcat]

As for the true danger of the kungflu... I do believe that IF we ever are allowed to know the total numbers it will be proven to be a nothingburger.

The half-assed numbers we already have prove its all bullshit fearmongering over the sniffles.

But this is just an exercise in mass submission.

Will you stay home when we tell you?
Will you let us close your church?
Will you let us destroy your jobs?
Will you let us trample your rights and the Constitution?
Will you wear a face diaper?
Will you let us inject you with a "fast tracked" vaccine?
Will you keep believing the media even though we keep changing the storyline?
Will you attack and threaten friends, family and neighbors who disobey?
Will you live in constant fear?

And the answer by the majority of Americans has been YES.

My response has been, continues to be, and will always be NO followed swiftly by FUCK OFF.

[yancy]

I still haven't been able to find a free face mask. I'd prefer one with proven efficacy to protect me (and others) from Covid-19, but I'm very low income and I don't know if I can afford even some shitty thing I could buy on etsy, and I wouldn't trust those if I paid for 'em.

Where do I get these things? I don't wanna kill grandma

I love grandma

[spon]

I disagree.

So does the ONS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

[Kiero]

So does the ONS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

Crappy small sample:

While the ONS survey includes relatively small numbers of positive swab tests (120 infections in all) making it hard to make any strong conclusions about who is most likely to be infected

Reported on the biased BBC. Colour me utterly unimpressed.

[Ghostmaker]

Had someone claiming the other night that if you test 100 people and get six positives, and then test 1000 people and get 70 positives, the latter is way worse.

I was like 'wait, percentages wise isn't that the same, with maybe a 1 percent increase?'.

[Brad]

Crappy small sample:



Reported on the biased BBC. Colour me utterly unimpressed.

The CDC has been proven demonstrably wrong for the past three months, but I'm supposed to just take whatever they say NOW at face value. Because, you know, it's a government agency full of expert scientists who have no political agenda. Even though the dude running it is gonna make millions off a charlatan vaccine.

So, yeah, never believing anything any government agency says again.

Had someone claiming the other night that if you test 100 people and get six positives, and then test 1000 people and get 70 positives, the latter is way worse.

I was like 'wait, percentages wise isn't that the same, with maybe a 1 percent increase?'.

Well it IS worse, as that's ~17% increase! DOOM AND GLOOM! See, I can write for the newspaper.

[HappyDaze]

So, yeah, never believing anything any government agency says again.

Brad, can you give examples of what sources you might consider to be credible (and, for the bonus question, add in "why")? Statements like the one you made make you sound like a conspiracy theory nutter, and I have to hope it's just an act.