Why did we lock down to begin with?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Numbers of sick and numbers of dead are the only 2 sets of data that exist to measure the pandemic.

The number of sick is increasing.

Yes, but why is the number of cases per day increasing. Are you testing more? Are you in a situation similar to Colorado where a large backlog of tests are finally yielding results? Are you testing localities in different proportions than you were previously?

In other words, the most incorrect thing you can do is to simply look at the cases per day figure and use that as a basis for what is happening. If it really is more people getting the virus then you are only about a week away from seeing deaths increase (as your cases started increasing over a week ago). The truth will be known soon. Are you ready to accept it when it is?

[james34]

Originally Posted by jfrog

See New York City and Italy numbers and trends pre lockdowns.

That's the problem the way they get the numbers is erroneous to begin with. To many reports of the virus being applied to those who have symptoms but haven't been tested.

Then death by Covid19 being applied to people who have underlying conditions and likely would have died from flu(not because of flu, but because of underlying conditions)

But the biggest factor for me in all of this is the obvious underlying and interwoven NWO agenda in all of this.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by james34

That's the problem the way they get the numbers is erroneous to begin with. To many reports of the virus being applied to those who have symptoms but haven't been tested.

Then death by Covid19 being applied to people who have underlying conditions and likely would have died from flu(not because of flu, but because of underlying conditions)

But the biggest factor for me in all of this is the obvious underlying and interwoven NWO agenda in all of this.

Wait... you don’t actually believe NYC and Italy were bad?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Wait... you don’t actually believe NYC and Italy were bad?

Italy - assuming their numbers are accurate and true - was because they had a lot of elderly (meaning: high risk) people exposed to it. NYC was not and is not as bad as they've claimed. We know this, because the reported numbers of death from C19 have been woefully over reported; dying with C19, is not the same as dying from C19, and that's when they even bother testing for it to begin with. We know this because emergency "hospitals" have lain empty since they were built. We know this, because the 30,000+ respirators they claimed to need, ended up going mostly unused and were sent elsewhere.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off, if Cuomo hadn't forced nursing homes to accept patients with C19. Yes, he actually told them they had to take on patients with C19, while they were caring for the most high risk group amongst us.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Italy - assuming their numbers are accurate and true - was because they had a lot of elderly (meaning: high risk) people exposed to it.

So we are in agreement then that it was very bad in Italy?

NYC was not and is not as bad as they've claimed.

It's not bad now I agree. But was not bad? That's a big stretch. You seem to forget that they did have hospitals getting overwhelmed, that they were sharing ventalitors at some hospitals. Was every hospital in NYC overwhelmed. Thank God no. Were some overwhelmed for a short time. I think that if your honest you'll admit that fact.

We know this, because the reported numbers of death from C19 have been woefully over reported; dying with C19, is not the same as dying from C19, and that's when they even bother testing for it to begin with.

Actually we don't know for sure if deaths are over reported or under reported. You see, the way they are counting them is bound to include some who shouldn't be included but just as importantly it's also bound to exclude some who should be included. I've yet to see anything more than speculation about which number is bigger.

Also important - when a death occurs generally there are multiple factors that led to death - referred to as comorbidity. It's naive to think that everyone who died of a heart attack or stroke or something else while having covid would have died of the same thing without having covid. Thus, at least some of those deaths you wish to discount I think should genuinely be counted - because covid directly led to the heart attack or stroke by forcing the bodies other systems to work harder to overcome the illness.

We know this because emergency "hospitals" have lain empty since they were built.

Which would be evidence that they locked down just in time. Also evidence that those areas should probably have been easing up on restrictions sooner

We know this, because the 30,000+ respirators they claimed to need, ended up going mostly unused and were sent elsewhere.

Which is also more evidence that they locked down just in time to curb it before it was too late.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off, if Cuomo hadn't forced nursing homes to accept patients with C19. Yes, he actually told them they had to take on patients with C19, while they were caring for the most high risk group amongst us.

You can't say it wasn't bad in one breath and then say it wouldn't have been so bad if X didn't happen. That's some major cognitive dissonance you have going on there.

Keep in mind the goal is to show that we know the following things:

The pandemic is highly contagious. There is no vaccine in sight. Covid 19 is fatal. The only control option is social isolation.

Easy stuff.

Those shouldn't be controversial points. I shouldn't have to explain how bad Italy and NYC got at the worst. What are fair points is whether small town and rural america really needed to lockdown at all. Their hospitals were never overburdened and we can't say for sure they would have been. My belief is that cramped mass transportation is the most likely culprit for the super fast and deadly spread in NYC and Italy. Which means to me that it will spread much slower when such elements are removed. Throw in some extra hand washing, going out less, staying a bit further away from people than otherwise. I'm not sure we can yet say how bad it would have been the further from urban you go - on the bright side we are going to find out soon.

[james34]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Wait... you don’t actually believe NYC and Italy were bad?

I dont believe any of this warranted any different reaction than if it were swine flu.
I do think it is purposely being used to further the NWO agenda. The most alarming of things being brought to the table are the proposed " steps for going back to normal". Those steps infringe heavily upon privacy and freedom.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by james34

I dont believe any of this warranted any different reaction than if it were swine flu.
I do think it is purposely being used to further the NWO agenda. The most alarming of things being brought to the table are the proposed " steps for going back to normal". Those steps infringe heavily upon privacy and freedom.

You say that - but you offer no evidence. We have NYC and Italy as examples of how bad it can get before lockdown (with no letup in sight before we acted). Can you at least acknowledge that the lockdown was a legitimate action for those 2 places?

[james34]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You say that - but you offer no evidence. We have NYC and Italy as examples of how bad it can get before lockdown (with no letup in sight before we acted). Can you at least acknowledge that the lockdown was a legitimate action for those 2 places?

There are no honest sources of info. that I can use to do an honest investigation. The first thing I do is investigate the information source , if they have history of honest reporting then I give ear to the reporting. So far all I find in support of this pandemic being what it was reported to be, is politicians and MSM.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So we are in agreement then that it was very bad in Italy?

Again, I said "assuming the numbers are accurate and true", which is hardly a guarantee. That said, I haven't paid too much attention to Italy. I let them deal with their own situation.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Were some overwhelmed for a short time. I think that if your honest you'll admit that fact.

Perhaps for a time, I couldn't say for certain, but what I do know is that their statistical "models" all predicted it would be far, far worse than it was, and that was after factoring in the whole lock down and "social distancing".

Originally Posted by jfrog

Actually we don't know for sure if deaths are over reported or under reported. You see, the way they are counting them is bound to include some who shouldn't be included but just as importantly it's also bound to exclude some who should be included. I've yet to see anything more than speculation about which number is bigger.

Do you really think their UNDER reporting the number of deaths? Seriously?!

Just as an aside, I have a toll bridge in the Sahara desert I'm interested in moving. Could I tempt you to buy it from me?

Originally Posted by jfrog

Also important - when a death occurs generally there are multiple factors that led to death - referred to as comorbidity. It's naive to think that everyone who died of a heart attack or stroke or something else while having covid would have died of the same thing without having covid. Thus, at least some of those deaths you wish to discount I think should genuinely be counted - because covid directly led to the heart attack or stroke by forcing the bodies other systems to work harder to overcome the illness.

Funny you should mention that. I highly recommend watching the video of the two doctors from California. It's a little over 51 minutes long, but well worth the watch. I even found another copy of the video, and posted the link in Esaias' thread.

Originally Posted by jfrog

You can't say it wasn't bad in one breath and then say it wouldn't have been so bad if X didn't happen. That's some major cognitive dissonance you have going on there.

That's not what I said. I said they would have been better off, I never said "it wouldn't have been so bad". Those do not automatically mean the same thing. You literally quoted me above your comment, and still you misrepresented what I wrote.

In fact, NY would have been a lot better off

If anyone is guilty of cognitive dissonance, it's you. Right after you make the claim that the hospital situation was horrible:

Originally Posted by jfrog

that they were sharing ventalitors at some hospitals

You then concede my point that they didn't need all the ventilators they had

Originally Posted by jfrog

Which would be evidence that they locked down just in time.

So which is it? Did they lock down in time, or were they overwhelmed?

Originally Posted by jfrog

Keep in mind the goal is to show that we know the following things:

I'll grant you the first two as likely true, but not the latter two. Based on the numbers of people who have been tested positive for antibodies, and yet never even knew they had it, the mortality rate is highly over stated. As such, there's no facts to support the claim that we must socially isolate ourselves.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Those shouldn't be controversial points. I shouldn't have to explain how bad Italy and NYC got at the worst.

Again, I would point you to the video of the two immunologists discussing their own situation, as well as the situation in NY. Much of the same points I've been making (and have made pretty much all along) is supported by their research.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by james34

There are no honest sources of info. that I can use to do an honest investigation. The first thing I do is investigate the information source , if they have history of honest reporting then I give ear to the reporting. So far all I find in support of this pandemic being what it was reported to be, is politicians and MSM.

This is the real world in a crisis. You don't have the luxury of waiting for perfectly honest sources of info.