Is Coronavirus as serious as they say?

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member

rifke

team bougatsa
V

Vegan. Cro. Spirit. 888

Guest
:rolleyes:

Fake C how come you dont mind being called a 'fag', you claim insults bounce off you.🎩
as if you were tough as nails yet you made a huge hysterical salsa like show of quitting because peeps were
'quoting' your posts.
dont add up FC:straightface:
 

The.Truth.

about Ruth
Anyway the idea of comparing deaths from coronavirus to deaths from car crashes is NOT #PrettyDecentLevel logic. I'm certain that no one knows the real number of deaths from coronavirus. The way the deaths are attributed to, and in some cases not attributed to, the actual causes is one reason. Different standards and in some cases different agendas would make this statistic questionable. Statistics in general should always be questioned to the degree that we use them to guide our actions but this is a particularly unreliable instance given the vast numbers of people who die each day and the vast number of people reporting the data.
"Car crashes" on the other hand are fairly straightforward, though that number won't be completely accurate either. But to form a better model of the true scope of deaths caused by coronavirus it wuold be best to compare this number to related statistics, those having to do with illness.
You can't be inoculated against car crashes and you can't catch a car crash by being near someone who has had one, generally.
 
V

Vegan Cro Spirit 444

Guest
Anyway the idea of comparing deaths from coronavirus to deaths from car crashes is NOT #PrettyDecentLevel logic. I'm certain that no one knows the real number of deaths from coronavirus. The way the deaths are attributed to, and in some cases not attributed to, the actual causes is one reason. Different standards and in some cases different agendas would make this statistic questionable. Statistics in general should always be questioned to the degree that we use them to guide our actions but this is a particularly unreliable instance given the vast numbers of people who die each day and the vast number of people reporting the data.
"Car crashes" on the other hand are fairly straightforward, though that number won't be completely accurate either. But to form a better model of the true scope of deaths caused by coronavirus it wuold be best to compare this number to related statistics, those having to do with illness.
You can't be inoculated against car crashes and you can't catch a car crash by being near someone who has had one, generally.

:rolleyes:

the way the deaths are attributed to and in some cases not attributed to the actual causes is one reason???? wtf does that mean FC?


or this:handpointdown:

"Statistics in general should always be questioned to the degree that we use them to guide our actions but this is a particularly unreliable instance given the vast numbers of people who die each day and the vast number of people reporting the data."
o_O

you should always question statistics but this is an exception so you have question? :rolleyes:

car crashes are straightforward but the number will also not be good:confused:
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
:rolleyes:

the way the deaths are attributed to and in some cases not attributed to the actual causes is one reason???? wtf does that mean FC?


or this:handpointdown:

"Statistics in general should always be questioned to the degree that we use them to guide our actions but this is a particularly unreliable instance given the vast numbers of people who die each day and the vast number of people reporting the data."
o_O

you should always question statistics but this is an exception so you have question? :rolleyes:

car crashes are straightforward but the number will also not be good:confused:
Can you imagine the amount of car crash death and injuries we could avoid if we just had a complete lockdown on using cars? Why don't we do it or perhaps I shouldn't be giving the govt too many ideas, LOL.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
OK so I came across this interview with Dr Michael Yeadon regarding the need for the vaccine for those under 60 years of age. I also found a good blurb on him, this is not Alex Jones but a highly respected individual in the filed of viruses and vaccines. The vaccine companies must hate a guy like him, they are making a killing (no pun intended) off this pandemic.

Dr. Michael Yeadon is the former Head of Respiratory Research and Vice President of Pfizer. He has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, has spent over 30 years leading new medicines research in the pharmaceuticals industry, and founded his own biotech company which he sold to the world’s biggest drug company Novartis in 2017.

 

rifke

team bougatsa
Can you imagine the amount of car crash death and injuries we could avoid if we just had a complete lockdown on using cars? Why don't we do it or perhaps I shouldn't be giving the govt too many ideas, LOL.
Corona virus has shown us that no price us too high to pay in order to save lies, so WWWWHHHHYY haven't we shut down all the roads?!?!
 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
Anyway the idea of comparing deaths from coronavirus to deaths from car crashes is NOT #PrettyDecentLevel logic. I'm certain that no one knows the real number of deaths from coronavirus. The way the deaths are attributed to, and in some cases not attributed to, the actual causes is one reason. Different standards and in some cases different agendas would make this statistic questionable. Statistics in general should always be questioned to the degree that we use them to guide our actions but this is a particularly unreliable instance given the vast numbers of people who die each day and the vast number of people reporting the data.
"Car crashes" on the other hand are fairly straightforward, though that number won't be completely accurate either. But to form a better model of the true scope of deaths caused by coronavirus it wuold be best to compare this number to related statistics, those having to do with illness.
You can't be inoculated against car crashes and you can't catch a car crash by being near someone who has had one, generally.
The point is about acceptable risk.

Since the 1950s the UK has defined itself through ideas of liberty which came after Eleanor Roosevelt’s declaration of human rights and freedoms. In their name, people have been asked to sacrifice traditions, job security, personal wealth and in some cases their very lives.

A year ago, the same state that imposed these Modern logics raised the stakes by withdrawing the very liberties it had insisted people should die for (throughout The Cold War); in the name of a virus which would not and could not harm the overwhelming majority of people. The principal of democracy was undermined right then.

In the process of the lockdown, billions of pounds were gifted to multinational companies that just a few years ago were spitting on the idea of subsidies in principle: the British PM underscored that there was ‘no such thing as a money tree’ and he appealed to ‘British values’ in the process. And yet today, for the very wealthiest, the money tree apparently flourishes.

And now, it turns out that those values from 1948, regarding privacy, degrading treatment, freedom to move within national borders, peaceful assembly, and so on, are being fundamentally chipped away at—in the same moment people are being forced to ‘temporarily’ lock themselves away (from this virus that most need not fear).

With the above in mind, I’d say that the social and fiscal cost of the Covid response has been strangely and suspiciously disproportionate to the risk.

The car crash analogy might be useful in a wider and intellectually necessary discussion about what is and isn’t acceptable risk, so I welcome it. Any meaningful critique of the Covid response would seem to hinge on this assessment.

That said, I concede it might ultimately be a bit pointless to have any discussions about acceptable risks now—because the most damaging effects of the Covid policies seem all but irreversible.
 

The.Truth.

about Ruth
The point is about acceptable risk.

Since the 1950s the UK has defined itself through ideas of liberty which came after Eleanor Roosevelt’s declaration of human rights and freedoms. In their name, people have been asked to sacrifice traditions, job security, personal wealth and in some cases their very lives.

A year ago, the same state that imposed these Modern logics raised the stakes by withdrawing the very liberties it had insisted people should die for (throughout The Cold War); in the name of a virus which would not and could not harm the overwhelming majority of people. The principal of democracy was undermined right then.

In the process of the lockdown, billions of pounds were gifted to multinational companies that just a few years ago were spitting on the idea of subsidies in principle: the British PM underscored that there was ‘no such thing as a money tree’ and he appealed to ‘British values’ in the process. And yet today, for the very wealthiest, the money tree apparently flourishes.

And now, it turns out that those values from 1948, regarding privacy, degrading treatment, freedom to move within national borders, peaceful assembly, and so on, are being fundamentally chipped away at—in the same moment people are being forced to ‘temporarily’ lock themselves away (from this virus that most need not fear).

With the above in mind, I’d say that the social and fiscal cost of the Covid response has been strangely and suspiciously disproportionate to the risk.

The car crash analogy might be useful in a wider and intellectually necessary discussion about what is and isn’t acceptable risk, so I welcome it. Any meaningful critique of the Covid response would seem to hinge on this assessment.

That said, I concede it might ultimately be a bit pointless to have any discussions about acceptable risks now—because the most damaging effects of the Covid policies seem all but irreversible.
How do you know the point when the person you're interpreting couldn't see the problems with their own basic logic?
What you're saying here is that we live in a corrupt world and everyone in power will take every opportunity to capitalize on and expand that power. I don't dispute that.
 
V

Vegan Cro Spirit 444

Guest
How do you know the point when the person you're interpreting couldn't see the problems with their own basic logic?
What you're saying here is that we live in a corrupt world and everyone in power will take every opportunity to capitalize on and expand that power. I don't dispute that.

how do you know THE POINT 'when' the person you are 'interpreting' couldnt see the problems with their own basic logic??? :confused:

whats does that mean FC and why always with the 'basic logic'? what type of logic do you operate under?
where everything is and isnt at the same time? :confused: and nothing can be made sense of???:confused:
 
Top Bottom