Replies

"Assuming this is true (and you'll have to forgive me for not automatically taking as gospel everything I read from anonymous people on the internet), then condolences,..."

Understood. But it is absolutely true.

"... but you and your family are a statistical anomaly. I have known of several people and two entire families who have tested positive for this, and the worst symptoms reported were basically a bad cold."

Which is to be expected. We know that. Most people have mild cases. But it's not a statistical anomaly for some to have serious cases, and some to die.

People have a hard time understanding numbers. With a survival rate of 0.5%, that means if 100 million Americans get this then 500,000 people will die from it. Dismissing it for the 0.5% is missing the point.

It's not even just how many die. On average, people are sick with this a lot longer than they are with the regular flu. And it still seems to be more contagious. If allowed to spread rapidly that means a large number of people very ill at the same time. Again, death rate isn't everything.

There's a lot to take issue with. I'm not saying mandatory shut-downs are good policy, or that strong restraints have come at the right time, or even that we must structure our society to avoid hospital overruns. But it's still a fact, as at has been all along, that if this disease does spread rapidly through the full population there will be some serious consequences. We're still at the point where a small part of the population has contracted. Uncontrolled, that's just the beginning. All we've done is slow it down.

With a survival rate of 0.5%, that means if 100 million Americans get this then 500,000 people will die from it...On average, people are sick with this a lot longer than they are with the regular flu. And it still seems to be more contagious.

It seems to me that our difference in viewpoints is due primarily to one thing: you accept the numbers that are being broadcast as true, and I don't. When they say that 250,000 people (or whatever the current BS number is now) have died from COVID in the USA, I don't believe them. Apparently, you do.

The parallel between what's going on with the presidential election currently and the COVID reporting is almost perfect, and that is no coincidence; the "data" regarding both things is coming from the same group of people. With the election, at this point, even if we don't know the exact "real" vote totals, we have seen enough demonstrated voting irregularities to know that the election was tampered with, and therefore cannot be trusted and is invalid.

Likewise, with the COVID reporting, we have seen enough "mistakes", misinformation and outright lies that we MUST assume that the COVID reporting has been tainted purposely, and therefore we cannot trust a SINGLE THING that is reported regarding this virus. Once you stop trusting the hysterical reporting from the mainstream media, and start evaluating the situation using your own eyes and experience, you are forced to ask "Is this all BS?"

Examples of the untrustworthiness of the COVID reporting:

1) CDC admitting that out of the 250,000 death figure for the USA, less than 10,000 were death ONLY by COVID, rather than COVID and, say, heart disease.

2) PCR tests with 50% (or more) error rates 3) single positive tests being counted multiple times, e.g. a person tests positive, recorded as 1 positive, then retests a day later, comes up positive, now there are 2 recorded positive tests.

4) news reporting breathlessly that hospitals are overflowing, when they are clearly EMPTY

5) the municipality in Texas that reported 90,000 cases and later said "oops, we meant 9,000 cases"

There are plenty more examples of reporting behaviors that go well past irregular and solidly into either incompetent or fraudulent categories. In light of that much unreliability, we simply CANNOT trust the data we are being given by the mainstream media, nor by any politicized civil or health organization which, in these times, is damn near all of them.