Coronavirus.

[wendog33]

I’m saying they are more susceptible to everything , not that they deserve to die. I’m not sure if you are aware of Charles Darwin and his more or less universally accepted “theory”

Yes natural selection and I'm sure you've studied the work of Dr Josef Mengele also.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Agree prevention is better than cure.

On the topic of masks, there are multiple studies that suggest mask wearing does not have any measurable impact on transmission rates. Yes there are also studies that shows some benefits from mask wearing. The overall conclusion is that there is conflicting science when it comes to whether or not masks do or don't make a difference to transmission rates.

No. Please stop spreading misinformation that has been proven wrong.

There's some studies that say that masks may not dramatically reduce the risk of you catching it. There are no reputable studies that say that masks won't stop you spreading it if you already have it. There are plenty of reputable studies that say masks will reduce the chance of you infecting others if you have it.

I know you bath in your ignorance but please stop spreading potentially harmful misinformation.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

I’m saying they are more susceptible to everything , not that they deserve to die. I’m not sure if you are aware of Charles Darwin and his more or less universally accepted “theory”

Are you a Social Darwinist?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I’m saying they are more susceptible to everything , not that they deserve to die. I’m not sure if you are aware of Charles Darwin and his more or less universally accepted “theory”

This is the odd thing. It's entirely correct that a virus like this leads to evolution of the species through natural selection. But humans have evolved to the point where evolution is no longer natural as we can alter almost any potential mutation or extinction factor. But sometimes we have people who don't want to avert extinction factors.

 

[Dawgfather]

No. Please stop spreading misinformation that has been proven wrong.

There's some studies that say that masks may not dramatically reduce the risk of you catching it. There are no reputable studies that say that masks won't stop you spreading it if you already have it. There are plenty of reputable studies that say masks will reduce the chance of you infecting others if you have it.

I know you bath in your ignorance but please stop spreading potentially harmful misinformation.

You don't need a study to realise there are multiple jurisdictions all over the world who have implemented mask mandates at various points over the last few months. The results have been an increase in transmission rates, rather than decreases.

You can explain it away if you want, but there are multiple instances of this happening.

 

[D0GMATIC]

Yes natural selection and I'm sure you've studied the work of Dr Josef Mengele also.

What a moronic comparison. There is a Massive difference between a flu like virus and and the “ angel of the “ operating in Auschwitz conducting cruel medical experiments on imprisoned infants. Natural selection is slightly different than manufactured human extermination camps. The only link between those 2 things is the fact you are an idiot

 

[D0GMATIC]

You don't need a study to realise there are multiple jurisdictions all over the world who have implemented mask mandates at various points over the last few months. The results have been an increase in transmission rates, rather than decreases.

You can explain it away if you want, but there are multiple instances of this happening.

You don't need a study to realise there are multiple jurisdictions all over the world who have implemented mask mandates at various points over the last few months. The results have been an increase in transmission rates, rather than decreases.

You can explain it away if you want, but there are multiple instances of this happening.

Perhaps, and I’m just guessing ,the fact that in the northern hemisphere it is nearly winter, which is when the virus is more likely to affect people. Similar to the influenza virus as may have suggested

 

[wendog33]

What a moronic comparison. There is a Massive difference between a flu like virus and and the “ angel of the “ operating in Auschwitz conducting cruel medical experiments on imprisoned infants. Natural selection is slightly different than manufactured human extermination camps. The only link between those 2 things is the fact you are an idiot

I'm sorry you don't see the similarities to your method of natural selection culling the sick and weak, with man made solutions of allowing sick and vulnerable to die in a pandemic.

I guess you not being an idiot proves you are right: those sick, old and immune compromised....they are all expendable during this pandemic so we can keep our civil liberties.

 

[Dawgfather]

Perhaps, and I’m just guessing ,the fact that in the northern hemisphere it is nearly winter, which is when the virus is more likely to affect people. Similar to the influenza virus as may have suggested

Yea true. But if masks were as effective as they were made out to be, then case numbers in these cities/countries should show a clear difference to their cities/countries who have not enforced masks.

but the opposite is true, for example:

 

[D0GMATIC]

This is the odd thing. It's entirely correct that a virus like this leads to evolution of the species through natural selection. But humans have evolved to the point where evolution is no longer natural as we can alter almost any potential mutation or extinction factor. But sometimes we have people who don't want to avert extinction factors.

I’m not advocating people take no precautions or that it doesn’t exist , or cant be fatal to people with pre existing medical conditions , people with immune deficiencies or the elderly. I’m saying lot of things would be. What I’m saying is the vast majority of people recover fairly quickly. Cars kill a lot of people annually but we don’t shut down society and stop driving do we . We take appropriate precautions and get in with life

 

[D0GMATIC]

I'm sorry you don't see the similarities to your method of natural selection culling the sick and weak, with man made solutions of allowing sick and vulnerable to die in a pandemic.

I guess you not being an idiot proves you are right: those sick, old and immune compromised....they are all expendable during this pandemic so we can keep our civil liberties.

I’m saying the sick and the weak are more likely to die from a lot of viruses or other factors and it’s unavoidable and for that you compare me to a Nazi doctor of death. Should the world stop having sex because of the existence of the aids virus which is fatal to susceptible people or do we protect ourselves from it and get on with life?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You don't need a study to realise there are multiple jurisdictions all over the world who have implemented mask mandates at various points over the last few months. The results have been an increase in transmission rates, rather than decreases.

You can explain it away if you want, but there are multiple instances of this happening.

I know you're not very well versed in anything scientific but surely you understand that correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I’m not advocating people take no precautions or that it doesn’t exist , or cant be fatal to people with pre existing medical conditions , people with immune deficiencies or the elderly. I’m saying lot of things would be. What I’m saying is the vast majority of people recover fairly quickly. Cars kill a lot of people annually but we don’t shut down society and stop driving do we . We take appropriate precautions and get in with life

Yep. As long as we're actually taking the precautions and minimising the spread.

 

[D0GMATIC]

Yea true. But if masks were as effective as they were made out to be, then case numbers in these cities/countries should show a clear difference to their cities/countries who have not enforced masks.

but the opposite is true, for example:

viruses are contagious by nature, I have no idea why it’s more prevalent some place more than others. You can take an umbrella out in the rain but won’t protect you completely.

 

[D0GMATIC]

Yep. As long as we're actually taking the precautions and minimising the spread.

Absolutely. And the more fragile or susceptible to dying you are the more precautions you should be taking

 

[wendog33]

I’m saying the sick and the weak are more likely to die from a lot of viruses or other factors and it’s unavoidable and for that you compare me to a Nazi doctor of death. Should the world stop having sex because of the existence of the aids virus which is fatal to susceptible people or do we protect ourselves from it and get on with life?

You should also think through the repercussions of what you say.

How do we protect ourselves from it and get on with life yet in practice accept that sick, old, diabetes, pre-existing probably die as collateral damage.

How does that 2 tier system of society work, in the real world, that you suggest?


What are you proposing for your grandmother and also your diabetic father for instance? How does life work out for them in Australia during this pandemic?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Absolutely. And the more fragile or susceptible to dying you are the more precautions you should be taking

Yep. But others need to take precautions as well. The thing with masks is that their greatest effect is limiting you from spreading the virus to others. So if they wear a mask and you don't then you could give it to them.

But there are also many young people who get sick and are left with potentially long term illness. But a lot less than the elderly.

I tend to agree though. As long as people social distance, wear masks in enclosed spaces or at gatherings, wash hands, etc. Then I don't think long terms lock downs should be in place anywhere. Temporary ones to get the virus under control. But not long term ones.

Can't wait for the vaccine.

 

[Lov_Dog]

I don’t recall universally sanctioned travel restrictions that contributed to a collapsed the world economy, Driving countries to economic ruin, there was no need. Evidence A: The Spanish flu that occurred around the end of the WW1 wiped out roughly a third of the world’s population . Comparatively, this COVID has a mortality rate of around 3% Evidence B I’m not saying it doesn’t exist I’m suggesting it is being massively overstated by the media. There are around 7.5 billion people world wide currently, of those around 60 million have contacted coronavirus or about 0.008 of the world’s population and in Evidence C only 3% Of the cases is it fatal. At the same time coronavirus is wiping out the population, easily more than 100 will have been born . Safe to more than double the amount of people will be born than will contract covid

oh deary, deary me!!

I give you Evidence A: "The Spanish flu that occurred around the end of the WW1 wiped out roughly a third of the world’s population"
World Population-by-Year (link)
Conservatively, I'll grant the estimated 1900 World population of 1,600,000,000 (which was likely much closer to 2B almost two decades later)
CDC Spanish Flu report - 50,000,000 deaths (estimates between 17-100M).
A sprinkling of simple math: fatality rate of 0.03125 or three percent.
You are an order of magnitude off in your foundations or basic understanding.
This probably happens to you a lot in life, doesn't it?
Perhaps you just read the first line of this paper (link)?

I give you Evidence B: "I’m not saying it doesn’t exist"

The coronavirus is just media driven hype, which is being used to collapse the world economy and pave the way for the “big reset“

My interpretation of the above capture from your earlier post is that you understand coronavirus to be driven solely by media.
Question: Do you believe coronavirus does exist and there is a global pandemic affecting the majority of populations in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus?

I give you Evidence C: "only 3% Of the cases is it fatal."
Almost precisely aligned with 1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus) [or Spanish flu] fatality estimates, as proven above, that you comparatively claimed was far worse than coronavirus.

Your summary:
"At the same time coronavirus is wiping out the population, easily more than 100 will have been born . Safe to more than double the amount of people will be born than will contract covid"

Interpretation:
Oh but because more babies were born during the pandemic, which restored population levels above pandemic-deaths, everything is actually fine?
Is that your logic - excuse my request for clarity, you do not seem to follow a consistent narrative.

 

[Lov_Dog]

2019 Flu Season: 2nd worst on record | Sonic HealthPlus

Australia's first choice for corporate and community health solutions.

www.sonichealthplus.com.au

What even is this meant to mean? Worst on record and reported before a global pandemic the following year.

NO!

 

[CaptainJackson]

oh deary, deary me!!

I give you Evidence A: "The Spanish flu that occurred around the end of the WW1 wiped out roughly a third of the world’s population"
World Population-by-Year (link)
Conservatively, I'll grant the estimated 1900 World population of 1,600,000,000 (which was likely much closer to 2B almost two decades later)
CDC Spanish Flu report - 50,000,000 deaths (estimates between 17-100M).
A sprinkling of simple math: fatality rate of 0.03125 or three percent.
You are an order of magnitude off in your foundations or basic understanding.
This probably happens to you a lot in life, doesn't it?
Perhaps you just read the first line of this paper (link)?

I give you Evidence B: "I’m not saying it doesn’t exist"


My interpretation of the above capture from your earlier post is that you understand coronavirus to be driven solely by media.
Question: Do you believe coronavirus does exist and there is a global pandemic affecting the majority of populations in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus?

I give you Evidence C: "only 3% Of the cases is it fatal."
Almost precisely aligned with 1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus) [or Spanish flu] fatality estimates, as proven above, that you comparatively claimed was far worse than coronavirus.

Your summary:
"At the same time coronavirus is wiping out the population, easily more than 100 will have been born . Safe to more than double the amount of people will be born than will contract covid"

Interpretation:
Oh but because more babies were born during the pandemic, which restored population levels above pandemic-deaths, everything is actually fine?
Is that your logic - excuse my request for clarity, you do not seem to follow a consistent narrative.

SMASHED!