wachtwoord

If this topic wasn't political I wouldn't be interested. Just like I'm not reading topics about the flu, common cold or hay fever. The fact that it's politicized is why it effect me (and probably almost everyone) It affects most people because millions have died. Lol no millions is not so many. Most definitely not most (world population is billions). It affects most people due to what has happened to basic rights in just a year. How little respect hss been shown to constitutions. THAT is how it affects most people.

If this topic wasn't political I wouldn't be interested. Just like I'm not reading topics about the flu, common cold or hay fever. The fact that it's politicized is why it effect me (and probably almost everyone)

First Google hit: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/ Worst European country is Czech republic with 233 deaths per 100,000 population. That is 0.23%. Want a more average case? How about Germany with 90 per 100,000: 0.09% US lies between those two with 0.16% (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country) That same source has Canada at 61 per 100,000: 0.06% Those are far lower numbers than 0.5% already. On top of that, those percentages are for the entire population! Older people are the vast majority of those deaths. Let's take the US (not to cherry-pick). If we take https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863 for example that shows that 1.7% of the deaths in the US concerns someone under 44. 0.017*0.0016 = 0.0000272, so an average American under 44 has 0.00272% chance of dying from Covid -19 (about 1 in 36,765) And I didn't even filter out the morbidly obese and those with lung disease, those with compromised immune systems etc yet! To be able to calculate further I'll assume filtering that out lowers the factor by another factor 50-100 (same factor as the age filter, no uncorrelated data is available). Leading to a chance to die of Corona for an average healthy American of between 1 in 1.8M and 1 in 3.6M That's comparable to the chance that an average commercial airplane flight results in a fatality (estimation by aviation consulting firm To70 see https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/02/fatalities-on-commercial-passenger-aircraft-rise-in-2018.html): 1 in 3M So who's being facetious? Or are you also scared of flying? The chance of death is remote and the only thing happening is fear mongering. Your assuming that everyone has been infected by using the deaths per 100,000 number. In Canada, it shows 22K people died out of roughly 1M people infected. You cannot divide the 22K by the population of the country and assume that is the mortality rate. That's ridiculous! Even if you assume that 5 times as many people had Covid and recovered, you still have a mortality rate of 440 out of every 100,000 people. And I'm being generous in assuming that 5M people have been infected out of Canada's 32M population. This is just basic math! Cheers! What are you suggesting? Using an inflated denominator (people dying from something else were counted as covid death) and understated divisor (many people had Covid without knowing it)? Further you are assuming everyone WILL be infected. Covid has been spread worldwide for over a year now, using recorded deaths divided by total population is a reasonable way to estimate death rate. Certainly more reasonable than what you are suggesting we use! And indeed the 22000 Canadians that died. Ridiculously low amount of deaths to sacrifice the freedoms and livelihoods of so many wouldn't you say?

First Google hit: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/ Worst European country is Czech republic with 233 deaths per 100,000 population. That is 0.23%. Want a more average case? How about Germany with 90 per 100,000: 0.09% US lies between those two with 0.16% (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country) That same source has Canada at 61 per 100,000: 0.06% Those are far lower numbers than 0.5% already. On top of that, those percentages are for the entire population! Older people are the vast majority of those deaths. Let's take the US (not to cherry-pick). If we take https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863 for example that shows that 1.7% of the deaths in the US concerns someone under 44. 0.017*0.0016 = 0.0000272, so an average American under 44 has 0.00272% chance of dying from Covid -19 (about 1 in 36,765) And I didn't even filter out the morbidly obese and those with lung disease, those with compromised immune systems etc yet! To be able to calculate further I'll assume filtering that out lowers the factor by another factor 50-100 (same factor as the age filter, no uncorrelated data is available). Leading to a chance to die of Corona for an average healthy American of between 1 in 1.8M and 1 in 3.6M That's comparable to the chance that an average commercial airplane flight results in a fatality (estimation by aviation consulting firm To70 see https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/02/fatalities-on-commercial-passenger-aircraft-rise-in-2018.html): 1 in 3M So who's being facetious? Or are you also scared of flying? The chance of death is remote and the only thing happening is fear mongering.

Cool, now try doing the same with "the earth is flat" and "5g kills".

Yes the healthcare system is overwhelmed. But not due to Covid-19 but due to human choices. Here in Europe at least last year they postponed all they classified as "non-essential" for many months. They included many cancer treatments and cancer checkups/studies among other things! I (and also doctors I have spoken too) would qualify that as criminal. Clearly the wrong choice was made and Covid-patients should just been send home to recover (or, unfortunately in some cases, die). Putting so many on ventilators was a bad call (and most of the permanent damage was done by these ventilators!) The choice was political: no politician can be criminally prosecuted for people dying of cancer but if people judges you mishandled a pandemic? .... Also no-one wants to be the harbinger of bad news (people will die, nothing we can do). They prefer to take action to try and stop it, even if that action is worse than inaction ("at least he did something") Your comment regarding only your aunt being allowed to see him. I agree that's completely heartbreaking. I heard of many old people dying alone who just wanted to be with their family members when they died. Again: I would classify it as criminal this was denied. But that is an argument against the Corona measures (the reason this happened) NOT Corona. Without the measures visits would only be restricted by the visitation hours of the hospital or senior citizen home. With all due respect: do you think you have ANY clue regarding side effects at this point? Regarding the individual we know there don't appear to be a great many immediate side effects. That is all we know. I'm not saying there will be terrible side effects: I don't know. But I think you are making a logical error here in assuming chances for that are so incredibly low. You are also using wrong numbers: I do not have 0.5/100 death chance. I would argue significantly lower than 1 in 1 million. (1 in 10 million seems the right order of magnitude for myself given the data). Regarding the effect to the population you are blindly assuming it to be positive. 1. As far as I've seen there is (as of yet) no evidence those inoculated no longer carry and spread the virus (please point me to a source if this has changed?) 2. As I wrote earlier that apparently it's immunology 101 to NOT vaccinate during an active outbreak as this will risk making the virus more dangerous. You wait until the outbreak dies down and start the vaccination scheme afterwards. Why isn't that game plan followed today? Why take the risk to make the virus actually dangerous? (with actually I mean more than influenza, which society has learned to accept as a part of life). I'm afraid the answer can be again found in political reasons (inaction is punished in society while action is rewarded, even if inaction is superior) Perhaps the reason for your opinion is that you fell for mental shortcuts? In most of your life those refusing to vaccinate do so for illogical reasons (claiming it gives them autism or something equally unlikely) and now you think that is the case again. Taking the mental shortcut that those refusing to vaccinate are simply dumb/uneducated. I would argue circumstances are very different here and therefore require a different response. I am not against vaccines. I'm against these specific vaccines at this specific point in time (and for myself likely at any point and time, as long as the virus is relatively harmless to me) based on the information I have available today.

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis? Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary. Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available. I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects. In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care. The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ... I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine. I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was. And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts. So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them). Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context). 1. More than 50% of the U.S. population is currently living with a co-morbidity. Even outside of that population and the death rate, a significant amount of those who have had Covid are currently suffering from seemingly long-term impacts of the virus regardless of the presence of co-morbidities. So what is the "risk group" if not 1/2 of the population or 1/3 of the people who get Covid? or the whole population because once it's the majority of people the segregation matters less? 2. Would love to see you make the case that Polio was more dangerous for the small percentage of the population it affected versus the "small" percentage of the population covid affects since you think I'm being disingenuous with numbers to demonstrate that Covid is worse than polio. 1. It shows you are disingenuous if you like to put 50% of the population into the risk group. Take all over 70, all with long deficiencies and all with secerely compromised imune systems and you are already overhooting. Also count people not by number but by expected remaining life years to make a more correct comparison. 2. You yourself wrote "polio paralyzed just 0.5%". That's many many orders of magnitude above Covid-19 And dont come with a handul of longer term concequences of those recovered from Covid and generelize it to the population. That is also extremely disingenuous. The estimated death rate of Covid right now is ~0.5% or so when accounting for unidentified cases. Having 0.5% of the population die seems far more impactful than having 0.5% paralyzed - but I don't know how to account for that in "life years" since Polio's would be close to 0 impact with that measure as not many died from it. A "handful" is a funny way to describe upwards of 1/3 of ALL people who have had it per the CDC. Ok we have gotten to the crux. You think the death rate of Covid-19 is 0.5% which is orders of magnitude higher than reality. I can understand drawing ludicrous decisions if that is what you are basing your decisions on. If I had 0.5% chance (1 in 200) to die from Covid AND a vaccine would reduce that to almost zero it would be a serious consideration (although a difficult one as the normal testing of the vaccine is not finished and the long term effects are unknown). The reality is that my chances of dying (or having ANY permanent effects) of Corona is smaller than 1 in a million (healthy, young). So not a decision worthy of consideration. But even in this thread I've already seen mentions of coercion. And of course in society at large (e.g. different rights for those vaccinated and those unvaccinated). I wouldn't be surprised if that escalates further. Scary times, not because of Corona but because of my fellow men: the true monsters. PS: (permanent) paralysis and death are equally serious to me.

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis? Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary. Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available. I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects. In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care. The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ... I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine. I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was. And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts. So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them). Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context). 1. More than 50% of the U.S. population is currently living with a co-morbidity. Even outside of that population and the death rate, a significant amount of those who have had Covid are currently suffering from seemingly long-term impacts of the virus regardless of the presence of co-morbidities. So what is the "risk group" if not 1/2 of the population or 1/3 of the people who get Covid? or the whole population because once it's the majority of people the segregation matters less? 2. Would love to see you make the case that Polio was more dangerous for the small percentage of the population it affected versus the "small" percentage of the population covid affects since you think I'm being disingenuous with numbers to demonstrate that Covid is worse than polio. 1. It shows you are disingenuous if you like to put 50% of the population into the risk group. Take all over 70, all with long deficiencies and all with secerely compromised imune systems and you are already overhooting. Also count people not by number but by expected remaining life years to make a more correct comparison. 2. You yourself wrote "polio paralyzed just 0.5%". That's many many orders of magnitude above Covid-19 And dont come with a handul of longer term concequences of those recovered from Covid and generelize it to the population. That is also extremely disingenuous.

Be wary of anyone who refers to themselves using that term or accepts others doing so.

@cigarbutt Do you realize the strategies you describe are strategies of manipulation not strategies of how to argue a point? (and the direct and indirect implications of you choosing the former over the latter)

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis? Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary. Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available. I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects. In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care. The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ... I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine. I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was. And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts. So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse The problem is that there is an inherent skepticism for science and statistics. Masks, vaccines, etc seem no different among the skeptics than when they first heard about smoking being dangerous to your health. It took decades to convince the skeptics. We're expecting Fauci and others to convince these similarly-minded people that Covid is bad in less than two years. It just won't take with them. Even though today, smokers are about as rare as a poodle with a mohawk, some continue smoking decades after the statistics were more than proven and they are treated as pariahs in society. There will always be the diehards...but if you can get the bulk of the population to change behavior, get inocculated, etc...it still ends up benefitting society overall. Cheers! Dude now I am taking offense. I am a scientist by education and trade. The scientific method is the best method of truthfinding. Trying to paint me (and all others with a similar opinion) as science sketics (I am sceptic of people not science) is intelectual laziness at best and blatant manipulation at worst. It's literally using ad hominems to "win" your argument (meanwhile use ad auctoritatems to make your own point). Please don't believe scientists blindly. Not everything they say is an outcome of the scientific method. They will also state things that are simply their opinion or make mistakes in study or analysis (papers on global warming tend to have large statistical mistakes mainly to do with statistical significance). Besides that, scientists are people with motivations: e.g. of selfish or political nature or coming out of fear. Stop worshipping people, that's an obvious mistake (look at history). Academia (not science!) is starting to take the position of organized religion in society based on how its used to contral people (not content wise of course). Trust the scientific method, not a group of people society declared defacto experts that can only speak truth. That is an extremely naive notion. (for a historic example look at the communistic revolution in Russia). Otherwise wouldnt all I say be true as well? ;) Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them). Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context). You lethality argument only has one little flaw: since nobody had any kind of immunity there was, and still is, the possibility of a system overwhelm. Over here (even with masks, movement restrictions, healthcare professionals in vaccination process and commerce restrictions) we had it last january. It is ugly, lethality rose and in the absence of measures things would only have been worse. Get a truly overwhelmed system and the 0,6 or lower mortality will easily rise over 3% or even more (people waiting for death outside emergency rooms due to lack of space, people inside being chosen to live or let die, hospital oxygen systems collapsing (!!!)). Yes this is not the US, but the healthcare system is probably the best thing in this country, and still collapsed. And then you have people dying from other diseases because of coronavirus overwhelm (these don't show up n the statistics). And people who decide the will rather die at home than waiting outside an emergency room... in a system overwhelm even low risk groups are at risk Nobody has (any) immunity? Against a Corona virus? Really? Are you serious right now or taking the piss? :/ Edit: For people reading actually wondering: With no immunity there'd be extinction rate death rates just like when the conquistadors introduced the flue and common cold (Corona) to the new world. Why do people THIS unknowledgable are unaware they are unkowledgable AND like to spread their distorted views for absolute truths. It'd be hilarious if it wasnt so sad and scary.

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis? Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary. Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available. I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects. In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care. The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ... I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine. I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was. And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts. So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse The problem is that there is an inherent skepticism for science and statistics. Masks, vaccines, etc seem no different among the skeptics than when they first heard about smoking being dangerous to your health. It took decades to convince the skeptics. We're expecting Fauci and others to convince these similarly-minded people that Covid is bad in less than two years. It just won't take with them. Even though today, smokers are about as rare as a poodle with a mohawk, some continue smoking decades after the statistics were more than proven and they are treated as pariahs in society. There will always be the diehards...but if you can get the bulk of the population to change behavior, get inocculated, etc...it still ends up benefitting society overall. Cheers! Dude now I am taking offense. I am a scientist by education and trade. The scientific method is the best method of truthfinding. Trying to paint me (and all others with a similar opinion) as science sketics (I am sceptic of people not science) is intelectual laziness at best and blatant manipulation at worst. It's literally using ad hominems to "win" your argument (meanwhile use ad auctoritatems to make your own point). Please don't believe scientists blindly. Not everything they say is an outcome of the scientific method. They will also state things that are simply their opinion or make mistakes in study or analysis (papers on global warming tend to have large statistical mistakes mainly to do with statistical significance). Besides that, scientists are people with motivations: e.g. of selfish or political nature or coming out of fear. Stop worshipping people, that's an obvious mistake (look at history). Academia (not science!) is starting to take the position of organized religion in society based on how its used to contral people (not content wise of course). Trust the scientific method, not a group of people society declared defacto experts that can only speak truth. That is an extremely naive notion. (for a historic example look at the communistic revolution in Russia). Otherwise wouldnt all I say be true as well? ;) Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them). Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context).

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis? Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary. Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available. I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects. In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care. The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ...

Do you want deflation? Inflation is great for owners of hard assets. As someone who has a 30 year fixed mortgage and 2 investment properties, I don't mind inflation at all in that portion of the portfolio. But if you grew up in a world without inflation (or deflation even) you would have likely made different capital allocation decisions. Interest rates (real rates, not the insane central bank manipulated ones) would also be low in a deflationary world. What is up for discussion is whether infaltion or deflation is better for the world in general. Of course that only applies if one of the two is better in general. My gut feeling prefers deflation as that rewards saving which positively influences peoples behavior. Regardless I think the question is moot. I think no-one can know for sure which is better and even if one could having the power to choose between the two is a power that corrupts absolutely. The free market should decide and central banks should not exist.

Getting back to my comment, it is only with regards to the fact that most people who die of covid-19 illness have preexisting condition, and those conditions would have eventually killed them, but they were pushed to an early grave by covid-19 to a far greater degree than the common cold, so credit where credit is due. As I said, if they are pushed into their grave to a far greater degree by covid-19 as compared to the common cold, then credit where credit is do. EMPHASIS: does the common cold have this effect? If no, then credit covid-19 where credit is due. Following your argument to its logical conclusion you would say no-one ever dies from AIDS? As its always a secondary infection that kills after AIDS took down the immune system. It is common practice to refer to AIDS as the cause of death and not the flu. Same with Corona. The "credit" is due with the lethal pre-existing condition not Corona. Or do you believe the death of Franz Ferdinand caused a world war? ;)

@cicarbutt: You ask who they is in my previous post. "They do blood tests on people .." so whoever is instructed by government officials to perform such tests (with tests being the pcr test). Interesting that official records are showing no flatline for death by heart desease in Q2 2020 anymore. I wonder what the cause is of that. I can clearly remember there being one but cannot find numbers corroborating that right now. Anyway seems at least my remark on current official numbers of heart attacks was incorrect.

Dude you think it's the "conspiracy-related groups" theories that have not resisted the test of due dilligence? You are living your life wide asleep aren't you. Try to open your eyes. A blind person can see it.

When looking at the following, what comes to mind? -People are stupid? -We should be scared? Maybe part of the above answers are right but i would submit that people somehow are trying to get through this, sometimes through trial and error and sometimes the result is not elegant. A nice thing about such a place is that people can share independent thoughts (sometimes with deep convictions). It doesn't mean though that someone who thinks differently is an enemy. ----- Have you seen the latest results for the influenza season (in the US as an example of a global phenomenon)? The point of this is not that we have learnt how to deal effectively with the flu but that there may something to learn if 'we' communicate and collaborate more effectively and in a more constructive way. Congrats, you discovered all influenza deaths are counted as "Corona" deaths. Most heart attacks are even counted as Corono deaths. How else could they inflate the numbers to such a ridiculous degree with a common cold infection? How do people get influenza if working in the house all day and rarely venture out without a mask? If someone who is very ill with COVID has a heart-attack and dies, how would you determine cause? Are you saying the heart-attack was inevitable and would have happened on same day and been fatal without the person being ill? If a 95 year old gets sick with COVID and dies, should we tell their kids and grandkids we don't count the COVID because their remaining life expectancy was so short? Let me invert that for you: 1) How do people get Corona when working in the house all day? (yes Influenza is the same) 2) Well the official numbers if heart attacks is certainly too low a number. Heart attacks didnt suddenly drop 98% and neither did Influenza. They do blood tests on dead people of any cause and if their "test" (which doesnt even test for Corona) cokes back positive they count it as Corona death even if he had zero symptons. Come on people. Certainly you aren't all this retarded? :(

When looking at the following, what comes to mind? -People are stupid? -We should be scared? Maybe part of the above answers are right but i would submit that people somehow are trying to get through this, sometimes through trial and error and sometimes the result is not elegant. A nice thing about such a place is that people can share independent thoughts (sometimes with deep convictions). It doesn't mean though that someone who thinks differently is an enemy. ----- Have you seen the latest results for the influenza season (in the US as an example of a global phenomenon)? The point of this is not that we have learnt how to deal effectively with the flu but that there may something to learn if 'we' communicate and collaborate more effectively and in a more constructive way. Congrats, you discovered all influenza deaths are counted as "Corona" deaths. Most heart attacks are even counted as Corono deaths. How else could they inflate the numbers to such a ridiculous degree with a common cold infection?

Anyone scared yet? I know I am. https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/experts-call-peel-guidelines-to-place-children-in-solitary-quarantine-cruel-punishment And it's not Corona I'm scared of: it's people. I enjoy dystopian SF. Doesn't mean I want to live it.

Fully agree with Clutch. The psychological reason behind that people generally don't get this, is that most people deal very poorly with the notion of how little agency one can really have. That's why both religion and socialism hold such power over people. People prefer the fake belief of being in control in a world in which they mostly can't, over reality. You can't make a man understand something if his continued non-understanding is required to keep his sanity. His mind won't allow it.

If the bio-terrorist attack would have the same ultra low death rate? I sure hope they'd be debated. It is a war alright. An (mis-) information war on the populace and "the good guys" are not winning. Hardly surprising but still very disappointing. We can debate the merits of being too cautious or opening up the world to normal business and letting the chips fall where they may. That's easy to say if your health isn't compromised or you're over age 75. We can also compare other parts of the world that simply let the virus spread and create herd immunity early, but you can easily show how isolated regions like New Zealand, the Caribbean, PEI, etc were able minimize infection thanks to their isolated locations. The irony is that those complaining about closed businesses now, weren't complaining about closed borders a year ago...so which is it? There is no true right or wrong answer. It's easy for us all to be Monday morning quarterbacks, and I don't blame either administration for tackling a problem that they've never faced, were unprepared for and hit the entire globe. And who exactly are the "good guys"? My family has lost three people to Covid-19 that normally would not have died if it was simply influenza. I have four friends who have lost family members. It's ultra low only for the majority of people, but extremely deadly for a minority. Cheers! I was actually in favour of closing the borders end of jan and beginning of feb 2020 (and telling friends/family about it, who thought that was insane and society wouldn't accept it). Mostly because of the unknowns: It gives options. After the virus had spread, containing it was a lost cause and all the measures are just extra cost. Throwing good money after bad. Just take it on the chin and we'd be 'done' with it by now (as 'done' as we are with the flu at least) at a fraction of the cost and with comparable (order of magnitude) cumulative lives lost. (btw: lives lost is a flawed metric that should be replaced with expected years lost but I degress). T.b.h. after finding how relatively benign the virus really is I would probably have opened the borders again in April/May but the point I'm making is that isolation is only useful when done (nigh) absolutely. Anything less is just a waste. Just politicians peddling bullshit. So no, New Zealand and friends are not neccessarily acting poorly. Europe/N. America/Australia definitely are (with a few exceptions).

If the bio-terrorist attack would have the same ultra low death rate? I sure hope they'd be debated. It is a war alright. An (mis-) information war on the populace and "the good guys" are not winning. Hardly surprising but still very disappointing.

You are liking this? :/ I'll leave the topic now or this will turn into politics but I find it highly disturbing intelligent people here find this "encouraging". The world is a sad place today and it has nothing to do with any Corona virus and everything with people and their nature.

Hi wachtwoord...Greg's post that got him in trouble was not in the Politics section, but this Coronavirus thread. If it had happened in the Politics section, which was closed a few days ago, he would not have gotten in trouble. It's as simple as that. So me being impartial is not an issue. If someone else did the same thing, they would be gone too. Greg has gotten a couple of warnings about posting political or inflammatory comments outside of the Politics section...this was not simply a first offense, but it consumes my time moderating the board. If people cannot follow the rules, there are warnings and then a consequence. Cheers! Thanks for the clarification. That it was outside the politics section is an important factor. For one, I've never seen you be "provocative" (for lack of a better word) outside of the politics section. I don't envy your role to keep social cohesion in an era in which people's ethics/values seem to differ significantly. Perhaps (probably) the differences were always there but never before so visible.