Here’s my problem with the article — THEY ARE COMPARING DEATHS OVER A WHOLE YEAR FROM THE FLU WITH DEATHS FROM COVID-19 FOR JUST PART OF THE YEAR, 2020.
We aren’t even halfway through 2020 and the deaths we have in the USA from Covid-19 ( assuming we count the numbers correctly ) is already approaching 60,000.
One can just imagine what the mortality would be by the end of 2020.
> Since 1995 the United Kingdom and Wales has had five flu seasons that were worse than the current coronavirus outbreak. <
I don’t know if that means much. There was no lockdown in those previous cases. So the argument can be made that without the lockdown, this current coronavirus outbreak would have been much worse.
The test case will be no-lockdown Sweden. How does this year compare to their previous flu seasons?
And this was with a flu vaccine!
People are evidently not making the connection that lockdowns protect people from virus outbreaks.
One factor that’s being overlooked in virus outbreak versus lockdown controversies is social Darwinism imo.
Insights welcome.
Were the other flu death statistics compiled after 6 weeks of societal lockdown?
No? Then gee, I guess you’re wrong.
Were deaths for those other years recorded as such so when anyone dies - its scored as a flu death?
there is no data upon which we can have a rational discussion
sorry
that’s the sad reality
pings