The pandemic is a lie

Author: Singularity

Posts

Total: 74
#61
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Singularity
The bad thing us that the ridiculously low number of deaths will be touted as a success by them, and they will never admit the projections were just wrong .

Exactly. They will come up smelling of roses and they will see to it that they do. Once these figures look like the justify their ridiculous action then maybe we will all be set free to pick up the pieces of our lives,incomes and jobs.
Topic's author
#62
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Stephen
I remember when global warming advocates said all the frogs would be dead. There is plenty of frogs, and now the government is turning the frogs gay, so they can die out and they can declare success.
#63
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Singularity
A newly emerged virus that has infected over 3 million worldwide and killed over 200 thousand is clearly a travesty. By anyone's definition it is a pandemic since it has spread throughout the entire world in a short period of time. What exactly is the purpose of downplaying the importance of a firm reaction to this danger? It strikes me as reactionary and callous to accept unnecessary deaths and illnesses in the name of avoiding interruptions to the economy.
#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@rbelivb
 and killed over 200 thousand is clearly a travesty. 
The World Health Organization estimates that worldwide, annual influenza epidemics result in about 3-5 million cases of severe illness and about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths. 

So 200K COVID deaths are a travesty but 500k flu deaths are acceptable. Got it.

Religion is fun.


#65
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So 200K COVID deaths are a travesty but 500k flu deaths are acceptable. Got it.
Even taking your numbers, the fact that a new disease could emerge and add 50% to the global death toll of the flu in under a year represents a truly dangerous level of exponential growth. If some new, extremist terrorist group planted a bomb and killed 500 people, we wouldn't just dismiss the danger because more people die from shark attacks or drunk driving accidents every year. I really think you are failing to recognize the unique character of something like COVID.
Topic's author
#66
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@rbelivb
Oh, well interruptions to the economy can result in a lot of people dying from starvation. A virus might have a 0.1% death rate, but not eating again has a 100% death rate. It seems pretty cold and callous of rich people to want us poor black people to starve to death, just to bring down their mortality rate by 0.1%
#67
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Singularity
Keeping people home for a few months might slow the stock market, but it doesn't need to result in people starving in the streets. There are more than enough resources in society to withstand a temporary pause in the economy and keep everyone fed, avoiding any unnecessary deaths. There is no reason to prioritize efficiency over human lives.
Topic's author
#68
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@rbelivb
You have it backwards. There are some eco omists predicting this will cause another depression. You are literally putting more lives at risk by continuing to keep everyone on house arrest. Let's not forget that this also violates our freedoms. People died in wars to protect our freedom, and now we have young people sacrificing our freedom so they don't get the flu. 

This whole couple of months thing is a myth as well. Since when do governments voluntarily give up power that it seizes? I have seen reporters predicting this could be a permanent way of living. No more hand shakes, face masks becoming permanent as well as social distancing, and a similar thing as bush was doing with terror threats for a while. So when we have a lot of people in one commu ity getting sick from this seasonal virus that everyone is put on house arrest for a while. A lot of people will die from these measures,and your blind trust of government being completely benevolent with no self serving people in it, to run your life is naive.
Topic's author
#69
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
Game stop is already announcing the closing of 300 stores. That is a permanent result of this. That is probably a 1000 employees who cannot find a job with unemployment at 25% right now. Without money to buy food those people will all die.  Taking a couple of months off from eating is not an option
#70
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Singularity
So are you claiming that taking precautions to avoid the spread of COVID would lead to an economic depression that would cause more than 200 thousand people to starve to death?

Let's not forget that this also violates our freedoms. People died in wars to protect our freedom, and now we have young people sacrificing our freedom so they don't get the flu. 
You don't have the freedom put someone else at risk, or to infect someone with a disease, just the same way you shouldn't have the freedom to pollute the air or play loud music above a certain volume. However, I agree with many of your concerns about government overreach. Times of emergency are when governments are most liable to encroach upon private liberties, so it's important for people to remain vigilant especially around the issue of surveillance.
Topic's author
#71
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@rbelivb
So are you claiming that taking precautions to avoid the spread of COVID would lead to an economic depression that would cause more than 200 thousand people to starve to death?
Yes, that is the claim I am making.

You don't have the freedom put someone else at risk, or to infect someone with a disease, just the same way you shouldn't have the freedom to pollute the air or play loud music above a certain volume.

Anyone who goes out in public knows they are assuming some risk of getting sick. I think I got sick 3 times last year because of how much I deal with the public. Is your solution to keep everyone on house arrest permanently? Because the risk is not going away. Honestly if people don't want to risk sickness in public squares than they should resist being in the public square. 

I want to stay on the issue of not having the freedom to risk infecting people with your germs. Is this like an absolute belief that nobody has a right to infect others with disease by accident? Would a good solution mean putting everyone in solitary confinement to make that impossible?

Or is this like a sliding scale, Like some risk is of infecting others is okay but not above a certain level? If so how do you quantify it specifically, and what is the precise amount of risk after it is able to be quantified should be allowed? More importantly though, how do you back up what level of risk is acceptable in an intelligent way? Like how would scientists know the specific level of risk that is acceptable? 

However, I agree with many of your concerns about government overreach. Times of emergency are when governments are most liable to encroach upon private liberties, so it's important for people to remain vigilant especially around the issue of surveillance.

Why is putting everyone on house arrest not a violation of private liberties? To me it makes no sense. If government over reach is a concern, why are you so willing to give up your rights based on the fact the media and government are claiming some invisible enemy is coming to get you. Isn't part of living in a free society the willingness to accept the increased risk of living as free? We take the risk of more murderers going free because we want the freedom of the police not searching our house every single day to make sure fugitives have no place to hide. We accept the risk that more 9-11s will happen because we don't want the government listening to our calls or reading our emails. Freedom directly correlates to having less security. 

Like a wise man once said, those who would trade any amount of freedom for any security deserve neither.
#72
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Singularity
Yes, that is the claim I am making.
That is an extraordinary claim: even during the great depression, suicide was the main cause of death, and life expectancy actually rose. There is no evidence that deaths by starvation per year ever reached above a few hundred. Economic changes can be correlated with health, well-being and happiness, but not generally with mortality.

"Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy."


Or is this like a sliding scale, Like some risk is of infecting others is okay but not above a certain level? If so how do you quantify it specifically, and what is the precise amount of risk after it is able to be quantified should be allowed? More importantly though, how do you back up what level of risk is acceptable in an intelligent way? Like how would scientists know the specific level of risk that is acceptable? 
It is not simply a sliding scale of risk that applies unilaterally. People drive cars every day, and that system has a built in level of risk, and causes a tragic yet predictable number of deaths each year. A pandemic is a unique situation, and it requires a change in our daily habits by its nature - that change is subject to scientific authorities and democratic arbitration. You don't have a right to continue as usual during a pandemic any more than you have a right to drive on the wrong side of the road.

Isn't part of living in a free society the willingness to accept the increased risk of living as free? We take the risk of more murderers going free because we want the freedom of the police not searching our house every single day to make sure fugitives have no place to hide. We accept the risk that more 9-11s will happen because we don't want the government listening to our calls or reading our emails. Freedom directly correlates to having less security. 
I agree with your sentiment here, but not as it applies to this subject. Responding to an unprecedented pandemic by enforcing a new social norm by which people must stay inside or socially distance is not an intrusion unique to the state. It is fundamentally different from something like warrantless wiretapping or gun control.
#73
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
I find it a bit.....odd that we didn't use what we already knew about viruses or is it virui?
The Reason for the Season: why flu strikes in winter
1) During the winter, people spend more time indoors with the windows sealed, so they are more likely to breathe the same air as someone who has the flu and thus contract the virus (3).
2) Days are shorter during the winter, and lack of sunlight leads to  low levels of vitamin D and melatonin, both of which require sunlight for their generation. This compromises our immune systems, which in turn decreases ability to fight the virus (3).
3) The influenza virus may survive better in colder, drier climates, and therefore be able to infect more people

within the last few weeks they have admitted that sunlight cuts down on the survival time of the covid virus, but didn't we already know that since that's pretty much true for every virus?  yet so many outdoor spaces have been closed, but closed up indoor stores are ok, doesn't that seem inconsistent with what has been known?

it's ok for a cashier to encounter many people in a day, often incorrectly wearing a mask, but not ok for a doctor, dentist, tattoo parlor etc to see just a couple of people a day using proper precautions?

these "inconsistencies" are more than a knee jerk response to such a surprise event imo especially after all the time that has passed and what we know.

it does seem that covid is more contagious than other types of viruses, though I'm not really convinced yet on the fatality rate.

the really scary part is we as a society are not learning about infection control as we should, the nursing homes are a pretty good example of that.  every level of government could educate, promote and empower everyone to adopt a lifelong habit of infection control but I haven't seen that at all.  This would also cut down on flu etc.

is covid a lie, yes and no, are the conspiracies wrong, yes and no.
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can congregate in grocery and liquor stores but not churches.

You can congregate in convenience stores and lottery ticket retailers but not public demonstrations.

You can congregate in hospitals and pharmacies but not beaches. 

Seems like very clear and logical rules of engagement.