Coronavirus Outbreak

[earl]

@curlytiger - a couple of quick questions:-

1. How many people have died world wide via COVID ?
2. How well have a lack of lock downs and quarantines worked in the USA and Europe ?
3. How well has the extensive use of lock downs and quarantines worked in Australia and New Zealand ?
4. What conclusions can you draw from your answers to these 3 questions ?

 

[earl]

I’m sharing an alternate view for those that are interested in diversity of opinion

You are sharing a highly unscientific and highly politicized viewpoint that goes against all the available data and science that we have on the subject.

Stating the world is flat or that pedophiles run the world is also a diverse opinion.

The commonality between these diverse opinions is that they are crazy. Diversity is not an excuse for stating something crazy.

 

[Curly_Tiger]

1. How many people have died world wide via COVID ?
2. How well have a lack of lock downs and quarantines worked in the USA and Europe ?
3. How well has the extensive use of lock downs and quarantines worked in Australia and New Zealand ?
4. What conclusions can you draw from your answers to these 3 questions ?

1. Not sure what “via” covid means
“From” Covid or “with” covid it’s a matter of definition
From covid based on the CDC view of 6%?
Co-morbidities, a massive skew to the elderly
Numbers can be manipulated and there is plenty to suggest that is happening here

2. There have been harsh lockdowns across much of the US and also Europe. Many US states that didn’t lockdown had far less death than those with the harshest lockdown regimes

3. Victoria had the harshest lockdowns and 90% of the Australian deaths
Lockdowns have many negative consequences

4. The situation is far from clear

Lockdowns also have a multitude of “unintended” consequence which have to be considered along with the restrictions they place on individual freedoms. These were discussed and evidenced in the link I included

We have different views, we both have facts and evidence including scientific evidence which supports our respective views

That’s why it’s perfectly acceptable to present alternate views

 

[Curly_Tiger]

I may share more views and information here but I’m not engaging further with individuals that are determined to trample any alternate opinions or information and the individuals that put it forward

Let people have their say

 

[cochise]

1. How many people have died world wide via COVID ?
2. How well have a lack of lock downs and quarantines worked in the USA and Europe ?
3. How well has the extensive use of lock downs and quarantines worked in Australia and New Zealand ?
4. What conclusions can you draw from your answers to these 3 questions ?

1. Not sure what “via” covid means
“From” Covid or “with” covid it’s a matter of definition
From covid based on the CDC view of 6%?
Co-morbidities, a massive skew to the elderly
Numbers can be manipulated and there is plenty to suggest that is happening here

2. There have been harsh lockdowns across much of the US and also Europe. Many US states that didn’t lockdown had far less death than those with the harshest lockdown regimes

3. Victoria had the harshest lockdowns and 90% of the Australian deaths
Lockdowns have many negative consequences

4. The situation is far from clear

Lockdowns also have a multitude of “unintended” consequence which have to be considered along with the restrictions they place on individual freedoms. These were discussed and evidenced in the link I included

We have different views, we both have facts and evidence including scientific evidence which supports our respective views

That’s why it’s perfectly acceptable to present alternate views

Victoria have the most deaths and had the harshest lockdown because they lost control of the virus and needed the lockdown to get it back under control and it worked. You know this but tried to use it to state they had 90% of deaths despite the harshest lockdowns. That is just dishonest.

 

[earl]

That’s why it’s perfectly acceptable to present alternate views

You aren't responding using facts:-

Let's now see what happens when you use facts.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

2 million deaths worldwide
The UK has 1,471 deaths per million people
The US has 1,311 deaths per million people
Australia has 35 deaths per million people
New Zealand has 5 deaths per million people

I'd state the situation is extremely clear.

If you are talking about unintended consequences of lock downs I completely agree that there are problems with having lock downs. I think there are better ways to manage the situation dependent upon the number of infections within society.

The only way the virus was contained in Victoria was via a pretty tough lock down. I don't see any other alternative though than taking that step because the virus gets out of control at some point. Victoria's situation was actually manageable via a lock down whereas overseas lock downs are basically playing a delaying reaction because the virus has spread so widely.

If you were rational you would see that there comes a point when the virus gets out of control and at that point all lock downs can do is minimize the damage within a short period of time.

I also notice you refused to engage in facts and refused to state the clear obvious conclusion.

 

[earl]

That is just dishonest.

I said he refused to engage in the facts. It's pretty clear that he doesn't like facts.

 

[cochise]

That is just dishonest.

I said he refused to engage in the facts. It's pretty clear that he doesn't like facts.

He is also manipulating facts to fit a poor argument and that is clear in his point about Victoria having the harshest lockdown and 90% of deaths. He is using those facts as an argument for lockdowns not working, it is a dishonest and, in my opinion, disgusting tactic.

 

[earl]

That is just dishonest.

I said he refused to engage in the facts. It's pretty clear that he doesn't like facts.

He is also manipulating facts to fit a poor argument and that is clear in his point about Victoria having the harshest lockdown and 90% of deaths. He is using those facts as an argument for lockdowns not working, it is a dishonest and, in my opinion, disgusting tactic.

I get it. He cherry picks facts and uses them in a dishonest fashion. It shows how disturbed these types of people are.

It's pretty bad isn't it.

 

[Guest]

Was any of that really necessary?
No complaints from me whatsoever in any of my posts, just thought we should all be respectful of each other
I search for the truth wherever I might find it and of course as for most that will include the internet

I found this to be a great summary of many of the concerns relating to the issue of lockdowns, covid modeling, ventilators, PCR testing, asymptomatic transmission, CCP propaganda, scientist biases, lockdown supporters biases, national health official biases, and lockdown consequences

I’d encourage all to review this well researched and supported piece from Michael P Senger, an American Lawyer who has appeared on a number of news outlets offering a counter view to the prevailing WHO, government and big pharma narrative

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348324838167908352.html

You're out there beyond a shadow of a doubt - sure, let's take the word of a US lawyer seriously. A lawyer mind you - not an esteemed Doctor or Scientist and from the country which has balled up their response to COVID in the worst way possible with over 400,000 dead and steadily climbing because they believe the lies they are told by people such as this twat...

Some of your comments and general ignorance are seriously concerning.

 

[Guest]

Standard responses here from the usual suspects who constantly attack the person not the content

The writer states a strong view and backs it up with extensive evidence including scientific data and also some more disturbing socio economic data. But you won’t read it because the intro is a strongly worded counter to your views, which you’ll note I disagree with but which I respect your right to express

Quote me all you like, I stand by it. But don’t read between the lines to come up with an unfavourable view of someone you don’t know and say what I meant by it. I’m sharing an alternate view for those that are interested in diversity of opinion

The content was garbage as there was no evidence. Seriously get a clue.

 

[Guest]

1. How many people have died world wide via COVID ?
2. How well have a lack of lock downs and quarantines worked in the USA and Europe ?
3. How well has the extensive use of lock downs and quarantines worked in Australia and New Zealand ?
4. What conclusions can you draw from your answers to these 3 questions ?

1. Not sure what “via” covid means
“From” Covid or “with” covid it’s a matter of definition
From covid based on the CDC view of 6%?
Co-morbidities, a massive skew to the elderly
Numbers can be manipulated and there is plenty to suggest that is happening here

2. There have been harsh lockdowns across much of the US and also Europe. Many US states that didn’t lockdown had far less death than those with the harshest lockdown regimes

3. Victoria had the harshest lockdowns and 90% of the Australian deaths
Lockdowns have many negative consequences

4. The situation is far from clear

Lockdowns also have a multitude of “unintended” consequence which have to be considered along with the restrictions they place on individual freedoms. These were discussed and evidenced in the link I included

We have different views, we both have facts and evidence including scientific evidence which supports our respective views

That’s why it’s perfectly acceptable to present alternate views

You wouldn't know a fact if it knocked on your front door.

 

[Guest]

Any more nonsense links to conspiracy theories in this thread will be deleted.

 

[JD Tiger]

So when someone posts things which are deemed to be garbage or nonsense, they get deleted and ridiculed, and called crazy and loony tunes.

Does anyone really think that that sort of censorship will change minds, educate people, enlighten others to the 'correct' point of view? I guess that the intention is to spare others from the nasty words, but I don't know. It seems most people chatting in here have pretty fixed views, one way or another, allowing only one side to put forward their viewpoint, or belittling their views when they are allowed, I wonder what people think that will achieve.

 

[Guest]

So when someone posts things which are deemed to be garbage or nonsense, they get deleted and ridiculed, and called crazy and loony tunes.

Does anyone really think that that sort of censorship will change minds, educate people, enlighten others to the 'correct' point of view? I guess that the intention is to spare others from the nasty words, but I don't know. It seems most people chatting in here have pretty fixed views, one way or another, allowing only one side to put forward their viewpoint, or belittling their views when they are allowed, I wonder what people think that will achieve.

It will allow rational conversation to continue.

 

[earl]

So when someone posts things which are deemed to be garbage or nonsense, they get deleted and ridiculed, and called crazy and loony tunes.

Those comments are crazy. They are loony tunes theories.

How do you handle people sprouting views in relation to mass genocide of people ? Do you allow it ? Where do you draw the line ?

Honestly I don't have an answer. I think free speech is important but at the same time there is a bunch of people in the world today who are completely delusional and sprout complete and utter nonsense.

Back on the subject of COVID. We've been ranked the 8th best performing nation when it comes to the pandemic.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/analysis-ranks-the-countries-that-handled-covid-19-best-20210127-p56x3g.html

 

[mike]

So when someone posts things which are deemed to be garbage or nonsense, they get deleted and ridiculed, and called crazy and loony tunes.

Those comments are crazy. They are loony tunes theories.

How do you handle people sprouting views in relation to mass genocide of people ? Do you allow it ? Where do you draw the line ?

Honestly I don't have an answer. I think free speech is important but at the same time there is a bunch of people in the world today who are completely delusional and sprout complete and utter nonsense.

Back on the subject of COVID. We've been ranked the 8th best performing nation when it comes to the pandemic.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/analysis-ranks-the-countries-that-handled-covid-19-best-20210127-p56x3g.html

Quick summary


 

[innsaneink]

So when someone posts things which are deemed to be garbage or nonsense, they get deleted and ridiculed, and called crazy and loony tunes.

Those comments are crazy. They are loony tunes theories.

How do you handle people sprouting views in relation to mass genocide of people ? Do you allow it ? Where do you draw the line ?

Honestly I don't have an answer. I think free speech is important but at the same time there is a bunch of people in the world today who are completely delusional and sprout complete and utter nonsense.

Back on the subject of COVID. We've been ranked the 8th best performing nation when it comes to the pandemic.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/analysis-ranks-the-countries-that-handled-covid-19-best-20210127-p56x3g.html

Quick summary


Not 9th...
You sure?

 

[JD Tiger]

So that's what people meant when they referred to the echo chamber.

For the record, when you disallow all opposing viewpoints to be expressed, the only conversation you are having is with yourself.

And dismissing opposing viewpoints as loony tunes is just poor form, and disrespectful to anyone that's ever experienced mental health issues.