Group of doctors claim pandemic is a sham

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

I just re read through the numbers. Your more likely to die from othe respiratory illnesses than covid. Much more so when your younger then 35.

?

Covid is a respiratory illness?

[InconceivableThoughts]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

One doesn't have to be afraid of the virus to be wary of it. Those not at risk pass it to those at high risk because the transmission rate it high. Most people don't want to be responsible for the death of those at risk.

Could you live with it? 

No I could not though I feel as whole we should be able determine fairly easily whos most susceptible to this disease and protect them better then just shutting down the economy. 41 percent of the deaths in america are from nursing homes.

[InconceivableThoughts]

Just now, psyche101 said:

?

Covid is a respiratory illness?

It my citation it shows the numbers. I mean to say other then covid. It seperates the deaths .

[InconceivableThoughts]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well that's where you stand apart form the rest of the world. Half the population by definition would be considered serious. It's not subjective IMHO. 

Imo half the population would be serious. I was just putting an example out there. Maybe to drastic.

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

No I could not though I feel as whole we should be able determine fairly easily whos most susceptible to this disease and protect them better then just shutting down the economy. 41 percent of the deaths in america are from nursing homes.

That proves the point doesn't it?

All those elderly died. It most likely got to those people via people who are not at high risk. 

[Arbenol]

24 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Could it be that anything else would of killed these people but covid got them first? 

That can be said for any cause of death. We're all gonna die - the only question is what gets us first.

[InconceivableThoughts]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That proves the point doesn't it?

All those elderly died. It most likely got to those people via people who are not at high risk. 

I really feel you shouldnt blame the disease there. Who in there right mind would go into a nursing home during a pandemic without wearing bio hazard suits or something. It was the carelessness of the workers or the families going to see them.

Edited October 29, 2020 by InconceivableThoughts

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

It my citation it shows the numbers. I mean to say other then covid. It seperates the deaths .

No other respiratory illness results in such high death counts

 

Are you basically saying sacrifice the elderly so the younger generations can prosper? 

It sounds like you advocating a death penalty for people over 50?

[InconceivableThoughts]

Just now, Arbenol said:

That can be said for any cause of death. We're all gonna die - the only question is what gets us first.

Fair but I'm talking about respiratory illnesses.

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

I really feel you shouldnt blame the disease there. Who in there right mind would go into a nursing home during a pandemic without wearing bio hazard suits or something. It was the careless of the workers or the families going to see them.

That's why the measures are in place. To curb ignorance and careless people. 

The disease is what it's all about. 

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Imo half the population would be serious. I was just putting an example out there. Maybe to drastic.

Quite honestly, I'm seeing your posts as highly contradictory. 

[InconceivableThoughts]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No other respiratory illness results in such high death counts

 

Are you basically saying sacrifice the elderly so the younger generations can prosper? 

It sounds like you advocating a death penalty for people over 50?

Not at all people at higher risks should be looked after better and take higher precautions is all. Shouldnt penalize over 60 percent of the population because the other half has to do things differently.

Edited October 29, 2020 by InconceivableThoughts

[InconceivableThoughts]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Quite honestly, I'm seeing your posts as highly contradictory. 

How? I'm just stating what one might find serious another might not. Subjective.

Edited October 29, 2020 by InconceivableThoughts

[psyche101]

13 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Not at all people at higher risks should be looked after better and take higher precautions is all. Shouldnt penalize over 60 percent of the population because the other half has to do things differently.

Who are you suggesting deserves a higher level of care?

[psyche101]

13 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

How? I'm just stating what one might find serious another might not. Subjective.

In that you admit it kills people, and we should worry about that, unless it's inconvenient. 

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

I'm sorry but how your implementing your math is completley wrong. I can not even reply to this. I'll try though so your saying on 347th day you would have a 50 percent chance of dying to virus youve had almost a year?

 

2 hours ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Youve must of already made your money . So when talking to me at least address the fact your sitting comfortable at home not needing to work anymore.

I said if the chance of dying was 0.002 per day.  You can also take that as an outcome of any event you wish. 

So if out of 347 young people diagnosed with COVID-19 there's a 50 per cent chance of one of them would die - based on your 0.2 per cent chance.  You can expect 1 in 500 would would die.

My point is that whether, or not, 0.2 per cent is a small chance needs to be considered in the context.  For example - 12,000 vehicles cross the Brisbane River each day using the Go Betweens Bridge.  IMO 24 fatal car crashes per day is unacceptable for that stretch of road.

I'm not sure how you can jump to conclusions about the circumstances of my personal life, or how they are in any way relevant to you ar this thread.

[the13bats]

There is a huge flaw in the idea of protecting the venerable from covid, no way to know everyone who is at risk,

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/florida-father-hospitalized-with-covid-19-after-son-met-friends-against-family-s-wishes-1.5030846

That story is sad a self centered irresponsible kid all ego driven with a sense of entitlement goes against family wishes and lies and look what happened to dad.

In this case they knew dad was at risk yet the kid just didnt care,

Then there is this one,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/30-year-old-dies-covid-party-texas

I feel horrible for his family,

We know old folks and those with health issues are at risk but some young healthly people drop dead of covid too.

I see threads on here denoucing covid calling it a sham even using grief to further their political stance, i see people bashed insulted and ridiculed, for wanting to play it safe, told the are controlled by fear,

i have zero control over what the gov desires to lock down, so yell at them over it, ive see people cry about let people work while they sit comfy on a sweet early retirement package, hypocrite?

I dont care what you do if you dont put me at risk doing it, you see me living in fear that fine, i see you living in angry stupidity and ignorance.

 

 

[InconceivableThoughts]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

I said if the chance of dying was 0.002 per day.  You can also take that as an outcome of any event you wish. 

So if out of 347 young people diagnosed with COVID-19 there's a 50 per cent chance of one of them would die - based on your 0.2 per cent chance.  You can expect 1 in 500 would would die.

My point is that whether, or not, 0.2 per cent is a small chance needs to be considered in the context.  For example - 12,000 vehicles cross the Brisbane River each day using the Go Betweens Bridge.  IMO 24 fatal car crashes per day is unacceptable for that stretch of road.

I'm not sure how you can jump to conclusions about the circumstances of my personal life, or how they are in any way relevant to you ar this thread.

Because ypu are not seeing how this is hurting the economy vs the small amount of deaths that it will cause. 

[InconceivableThoughts]

Please just reread the numbers

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

It is not that serious.

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Because ypu are not seeing how this is hurting the economy vs the small amount of deaths that it will cause. 

The amount is not small. That's a ridiculous thing to say. The amount of people under 50 is much less than those over 50. 

All I'm getting from your posts is allow the elderly to die so the younger can prosper.

[the13bats]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The amount is not small. That's a ridiculous thing to say. The amount of people under 50 is much less than those over 50. 

All I'm getting from your posts is allow the elderly to die so the younger can prosper.

I wonder if he will try to get infected since its not serious.

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, the13bats said:

I wonder if he will try to get infected since its not serious.

It's the

Well it won't kill me so screw those it will

Attitude that I find concerning. 

[Golden Duck]

13 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Because ypu are not seeing how this is hurting the economy vs the small amount of deaths that it will cause. 

 

10 minutes ago, InconceivableThoughts said:

Please just reread the numbers

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

It is not that serious.

Yes read the numbers.  Information from the USA Heart Foundation shows that the number of adults with some form of heart disease is creeping up towards 50 per cent.  COVID-19 can take a prognosis of living with a trivial heart condition for decades, into weeks or days.  So your definition of who is a healthy person may be optimistic and difficult to quantify.

https://www.heart.org/-/media/files/about-us/statistics/2020-heart-disease-and-stroke-ucm_505473.pdf?la=en

[the13bats]

27 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

Yes read the numbers.  Information from the USA Heart Foundation shows that the number of adults with some form of heart disease is creeping up towards 50 per cent.  COVID-19 can take a prognosis of living with a trivial heart condition for decades, into weeks or days.  So your definition of who is a healthy person may be optimistic and difficult to quantify.

https://www.heart.org/-/media/files/about-us/statistics/2020-heart-disease-and-stroke-ucm_505473.pdf?la=en

Thank you! Well said,

I have seen some try to play that a person was gonna die anyway and downplay or even remove covid from the equation, sure they had cronic perhaps even terminal pre-existing conditions that very well might have one day killed them but covid jumped in and as you point out cut in some cases years off their lives, but no way can we let fear control us and dare blame covid for that,  you fear monger.

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

That can be said for any cause of death. We're all gonna die - the only question is what gets us first.

Agreed everyone is going to get it, so it is worth suffering with masks and lockdowns in the meantime for a 30% improvement in not getting it, (unless you take it, (vaccine) for the rest of your life you will get it)?

As in all things, the doctors who don't agree, shouldn't get life in prison and their rights taken away, when a warning would do?