This Corona virus pandemic could be the weapon that takes our liberties away , all in the name of saving lives?

[TheIndianGirl]

Those who are elderly and/or with health conditions, its going to be up to them to be hyper vigilant

This is easier said than done. When the economy opens, the 60 plus and those with health conditions (according to CDC, 40% of Americans have at least one chronic condition) are going back to work. They are not going to quit/can't afford to quit their jobs. It is hard to say that these people have a choice to work/leave their homes, when in fact they don't. Employers can't fire the elderly or sick either, so there will be the scenario where the young/asymptomatic are infecting the elderly/sick. However, if the lockdown is extended, they will stay at home and are protected. Yes, I realize businesses are struggling and many people are not getting paid during the lockdown. I think our government can afford a few months of providing relief. (There should be more scrutiny when providing relief; for instance I do not believe people working and receiving their full paychecks should be receiving relief). We at least need to have easily accessible treatment available. Hospitals are abandoning HCQ and are turning to Remdesivir; it will take some time to develop this drug on a mass basis so that all hospitals have this drug.

 

[StrugglingTilMyReward]

This is easier said than done. When the economy opens, the 60 plus and those with health conditions (according to CDC, 40% of Americans have at least one chronic condition) are going back to work. They are not going to quit/can't afford to quit their jobs. It is hard to say that these people have a choice to work/leave their homes, when in fact they don't. Employers can't fire the elderly or sick either, so there will be the scenario where the young/asymptomatic are infecting the elderly/sick. However, if the lockdown is extended, they will stay at home and are protected. Yes, I realize businesses are struggling and many people are not getting paid during the lockdown. I think our government can afford a few months of providing relief. (There should be more scrutiny when providing relief; for instance I do not believe people working and receiving their full paychecks should be receiving relief). We at least need to have easily accessible treatment available. Hospitals are abandoning HCQ and are turning to Remdesivir; it will take some time to develop this drug on a mass basis so that all hospitals have this drug.

There is no perfect solution obviously, the only thing that really can be done is to try and minimize the amount of harm being done....in public health the term 'harm reduction' is used.

I'm in Canada, and for the most part I believe our social safety is broader and deeper than what exits in most U.S. states. But still the situation you describe of 60 year old still in the workforce, it exists here too. Its such a tough situation we've put ourselves in....laying off millions, and forcing them onto gov't welfare. In Canada workers who have been laid off due to lockdown measures get $2,000 per month....and I believe there are some additional benefits as well, but it doesn't replace most salaries.

What has bothered me here is that a 60 year old with asthma and diabetes who works as a grocery clerk...someone in this situation did not have the option of staying home instead of working, unless they were willing to quit their job which would mean getting zero government assistance. And yet our governments here keep saying "we're doing everything we can to keep people safe"....as we say up here HORSE HOCKEY.

Regardless of where it is, those in high risk groups should not have to choose between putting their lives at risk or rent and groceries.

 

[luigi]

I'm in the New York area, and I just heard that though the governor had plans to slowly start reopening next week, it now looks like this will be postponed until next month, if even then.

The reason for this new agenda is that Covid-19 which had primarily been killing the elderly, seems to have mutated with a new strain now affecting children. Somewhere around 85 children in New York have tested positive for covid-19, with three of them dying. That's greater than a 3% mortality rate.

 

[Moses_Young]

I do not doubt that the numbers are off, and sometimes even deliberately fudged. Which I can also personally attest to. But to say there is no deadly virus is right up there with flat-earth theory.

You realise that when someone gets sick, it doesn't need to be caused by an infectious agent? The fact that only 2 people in your family took ill attests to the fact that this sickness was most likely not due to something infectious (i.e. it wasn't a virus or bacteria). You can see that, right?

 

[1ofthem]

This is easier said than done. When the economy opens, the 60 plus and those with health conditions (according to CDC, 40% of Americans have at least one chronic condition) are going back to work. They are not going to quit/can't afford to quit their jobs. It is hard to say that these people have a choice to work/leave their homes, when in fact they don't. Employers can't fire the elderly or sick either, so there will be the scenario where the young/asymptomatic are infecting the elderly/sick. However, if the lockdown is extended, they will stay at home and are protected. Yes, I realize businesses are struggling and many people are not getting paid during the lockdown. I think our government can afford a few months of providing relief. (There should be more scrutiny when providing relief; for instance I do not believe people working and receiving their full paychecks should be receiving relief). We at least need to have easily accessible treatment available. Hospitals are abandoning HCQ and are turning to Remdesivir; it will take some time to develop this drug on a mass basis so that all hospitals have this drug.

You would think that the government would have thought of this. Instead of shutting every thing down...Why couldn't they have just let the 60 plus age group draw public assistance or unemployment benefits while securing their jobs until they are able to go back to work safely. Would have been a lot better than shutting down everything. Let the elderly and sick go on lock down as they see fit for their own safety. While the healthy continue to work so that the economy is not completely shut down.

That would make more sense to me anyhow.....

 

[Nehemiah6]

That's greater than a 3% mortality rate.

That is not the way to determine the mortality rate. Firstly all those who are infected but show absolutely no symptoms (asymptomatic) must also be included. Indeed they show no symptoms because their immune system has overcome the infection. So if 85 tested positive (and not everyone is tested) multiply that by 7 and you will find that about 600 have been infected. So the mortality rate could be only 0.5 percent or even less since overall it is only 0.0 to 0.1%.

But is this whole scenario about children cooked up or is it the truth?

"By decade, the risk of hospitalization from infection with the new coronavirus is: Zero for kids under 10; 0.1% for kids 10 to 19; 1% for people aged 20 to 29; 3.4% for people aged 30 to 39; 4.3% for people in their 40s; 8.2% for those in their 50s; 11.8% for people aged 60 to 69; 16.6% for those in their 70s; and 18.4% for those in their 80s or above.

As for the death rate, the risk was near zero for people under 40, crept up to 0.2% for people 40 to 49, to 0.6% for 50-somethings, just under 2% for people in their 60s, 4.3% for those in their 70s, and 7.8% for those in their 80s, the findings showed."

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...th-with-covid-19-rise-steadily-with-age-study

 

[luigi]

That is not the way to determine the mortality rate. Firstly all those who are infected but show absolutely no symptoms (asymptomatic) must also be included. Indeed they show no symptoms because their immune system has overcome the infection. So if 85 tested positive (and not everyone is tested) multiply that by 7 and you will find that about 600 have been infected. So the mortality rate could be only 0.5 percent or even less since overall it is only 0.0 to 0.1%.

But is this whole scenario about children cooked up or is it the truth?

"By decade, the risk of hospitalization from infection with the new coronavirus is: Zero for kids under 10; 0.1% for kids 10 to 19; 1% for people aged 20 to 29; 3.4% for people aged 30 to 39; 4.3% for people in their 40s; 8.2% for those in their 50s; 11.8% for people aged 60 to 69; 16.6% for those in their 70s; and 18.4% for those in their 80s or above.

As for the death rate, the risk was near zero for people under 40, crept up to 0.2% for people 40 to 49, to 0.6% for 50-somethings, just under 2% for people in their 60s, 4.3% for those in their 70s, and 7.8% for those in their 80s, the findings showed."

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...th-with-covid-19-rise-steadily-with-age-study

All I know Nehemiah6, is what all of us can easily see in the news. And what I have heard is that a couple of weeks ago there was 1 or 2 children with this illness that is similar to something called Kawasaki disease, and two days ago was 85 children, and last night was now 97 children. So whatever it is, it is spreading among children. And let's hope it is as you say with a mortality rate of .0% to .1%.

 

[Moses_Young]

You would think that the government would have thought of this. Instead of shutting every thing down...Why couldn't they have just let the 60 plus age group draw public assistance or unemployment benefits while securing their jobs until they are able to go back to work safely. Would have been a lot better than shutting down everything. Let the elderly and sick go on lock down as they see fit for their own safety. While the healthy continue to work so that the economy is not completely shut down.

That would make more sense to me anyhow.....

It would make sense to anyone without an agenda. The agenda of this lockdown is about global domination, not about some flu with a ritzy name. Look at the numbers. They can't even meet the annual flu mortality rate, despite them attributing all respiratory related deaths to covid-1984.

 

[1ofthem]

It would make sense to anyone without an agenda. The agenda of this lockdown is about global domination, not about some flu with a ritzy name. Look at the numbers. They can't even meet the annual flu mortality rate, despite them attributing all respiratory related deaths to covid-1984.

Yeah, it seems something else is going on. I've never been much into conspiracy theories, but anyone can see that there is something else at play here.

 

[acts5_29]

You realise that when someone gets sick, it doesn't need to be caused by an infectious agent? The fact that only 2 people in your family took ill attests to the fact that this sickness was most likely not due to something infectious (i.e. it wasn't a virus or bacteria). You can see that, right?

No, I really don't.

First off, like I said, only one person in my family got sick. Second, she lives with a roommate. Not us.

Third, the other TWO people who got sick were a husband-and-wife couple, who were the parents of one of our church members. The couple themselves do not attend our church.

Husband-and-wife couple? See? That's infectious. Right?

 

[Moses_Young]

No, I really don't.

First off, like I said, only one person in my family got sick. Second, she lives with a roommate. Not us.

Third, the other TWO people who got sick were a husband-and-wife couple, who were the parents of one of our church members. The couple themselves do not attend our church.

Husband-and-wife couple? See? That's infectious. Right?

Possibly. Or exposed to the same poison present at the same location (e.g. 5G or other electromagnetic radiation). To definitively prove contagion, there are Koch's postulates, but as the WHO and other advisory organisations have not tried to demonstrate the alleged virus is contagious (and they easily could, if there is a contagious virus, to dispel the scepticism from the majority of people), and as many people who have confirmed contact with known carriers don't seem to get sick, one can reasonably presume that the sickness is not contagious.

 

[Absolutely]

Do note that the death rate (I prefer the term mortality rate, it sounds less harsh).....you're taking this as a % of just the "identified cases"....which every expert I've come across refers to as just the tip of the proverbial iceberg....most seem to think the real case number is at least 10x higher. People who have only very mild symptoms or none at all have no reason to be tested, but they're still cases.

She is stuck on making it as fearful as possible.
I have told her several times about it.
Anything but fake numbers offends her.

 

[StrugglingTilMyReward]

She is stuck on making it as fearful as possible.
I have told her several times about it.
Anything but fake numbers offends her.

I have to keep reminding myself to be kind....there are a lot of people who are genuinely scared and it doesn't help the situation to say the information their fear is based on, that its fake. In point of fact, its not fake....but its not the full picture either.

I'm in Canada and we've had over 73,000 cases, with 31,800 still active. Thankfully only 502 are deemed either serious or critical. But the way the media is reporting this, they're not providing any context or detailed information....so you read about 1,000 new cases and it does sound scary. A woman I went to high school with, a nurse in a nursing home.....word went out that she was fighting Covid, and everyone was posting the usual 'thoughts and prayers', myself included. I pictured Deb in an ICU unit, maybe on a ventilator....as it turns out she and other staff who'd been infected were isolating in a motel.

 

[Absolutely]

I have to keep reminding myself to be kind....there are a lot of people who are genuinely scared and it doesn't help the situation to say the information their fear is based on, that its fake. In point of fact, its not fake....but its not the full picture either.

I'm in Canada and we've had over 73,000 cases, with 31,800 still active. Thankfully only 502 are deemed either serious or critical. But the way the media is reporting this, they're not providing any context or detailed information....so you read about 1,000 new cases and it does sound scary. A woman I went to high school with, a nurse in a nursing home.....word went out that she was fighting Covid, and everyone was posting the usual 'thoughts and prayers', myself included. I pictured Deb in an ICU unit, maybe on a ventilator....as it turns out she and other staff who'd been infected were isolating in a motel.

The numbers are fake

....not the virus

 

[Moses_Young]

The numbers are fake

....not the virus

More accurately the sickness or disease. The "virus" has not been proven.

 

[Absolutely]

 

[Silverwings]

UNBELIEVABLE VIDEO

 

[JohnR7]

We slowed the curve but now we are seeing meat shortages,

You are seeing meat shortage in processed food because the conditions are very unhealthy and the product they are putting out is not healthy. People need to quit eating that poison and start to eat food that is good for them.

 

[EleventhHour]

You are seeing meat shortage in processed food because the conditions are very unhealthy and the product they are putting out is not healthy. People need to quit eating that poison and start to eat food that is good for them.

Agree, many meat plants have had to close amid out breaks.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

You are seeing meat shortage in processed food because the conditions are very unhealthy and the product they are putting out is not healthy. People need to quit eating that poison and start to eat food that is good for them.

I'll take my chances lol