3 ms·

This framing shifts responsibility to an abstract virus, rather than the human response. Early statistics showed the overwhelming majority of people would be f

This framing shifts responsibility to an abstract virus, rather than the human response. Early statistics showed the overwhelming majority of people would be fine if exposed to the virus, given that at least half of people were asymptomatic. Older people with comorbidities were at higher risk, though survival was still the order of 98%+. The overall mortality was on the order of the 1968 Hong Kong flu, which most people have forgotten. Children especially were never at significant risk. The choice to lock down and do Zoom schooling was at the cost of the youth, which have seen marked declines in academic performance and increases in mental illness. We can see that nations like Sweden which never locked down turned out fine. The virus emerged from Wuhan, where there was the virology lab working on gain of function for coronaviruses. The NIH had funded such research while Fauci was leading the organization. A revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and the FDA helped lead to the suspiciously rushed vaccines, while restricting the release of Pfizer's trial data until 2096. The mandates did not make sense since the vaccines were shown to not limit transmission. Given how many boosters some people are on now, they are probably some of the least effective vaccines of all time, compared to the actual good ones for smallpox and polio. Supply chains shattered, or in other words, the trade war that Trump initiated against China had escalated. The virus was the compelling justification to shut down factories, causing supply shocks across the world, demonstrating the foolishness Neoliberal globalist economic policy and just how dependent the West had become on manufacturing based in a hostile totalitarian state. Monetary policy in response to the supply shocks caused widespread inflation and reduced living standards for young Americans with little wealth. Authoritarianism, surveillance, and censorship expanded, which was already the long term trend in the West as its elites seek to emulate the strengths of the Chinese state.

jasonlotito 3y ago
> rather than the human response. I can agree that the government's response in 2020 was horrible, and those people at the top should be held accountable for that awful response. > Early statistics showed the overwhelming majority of people would be fine if exposed to the virus, Hospitals were overwhelmed. That was the concern. The people who were "fine"? Many of them did so only because they were hospitalized. If we just exposed everyone to it all at once, it would have been a lot worse. > We can see that nations like Sweden which never locked down turned out fine. If by "turned out fine" you mean having significantly more deaths than neighboring countries and still suffering economic issues, sure. > survival was still the order of 98% Survival rate ignores long-term damage, which we are still learning about today, and is an ignorant statistic to use. It's why many disasters talk about casualties and not just deaths. It's like saying less than 1.5% of the children in Uvalde survived. > The virus emerged from Wuhan, where there was the virology lab... And not a single US Intelligence agency has come out strongly in favor of the Wuhan Lab theory, beyond one saying it's "plausible." > Supply chains shattered, or in other words, the trade war that Trump initiated against China had escalated... Monetary policy in response to the supply shocks caused widespread inflation and reduced living standards for young Americans with little wealth. The argument here being that it was Trump's trade war with China that increased inflation and reduced living standards...
- orangecat 3y ago
  If by "turned out fine" you mean having significantly more deaths than neighboring countries and still suffering economic issues, sure. And significantly fewer deaths than countries that closed schools for years or arrested people for walking alone in parks. Survival rate ignores long-term damage, which we are still learning about today, and is an ignorant statistic to use. Ok, just also make sure to include the psychological and economic costs of NPIs, which we are also still learning about. Remember the teacher's unions saying that learning loss was a myth and kids are "resilient"? And not a single US Intelligence agency has come out strongly in favor of the Wuhan Lab theory, beyond one saying it's "plausible." Two agencies lean toward a lab leak, others toward natural origin, none with high confidence (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi...). A lab leak origin is perhaps less likely than the alternative, but it's a entirely reasonable hypothesis.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    > And significantly fewer deaths than countries that closed schools for years or arrested people for walking alone in parks. Which country had schools closed for years? Not the US. > Ok, just also make sure to include the psychological and economic costs of NPIs, which we are also still learning about. Remember the teacher's unions saying that learning loss was a myth and kids are "resilient"? Oh, the "I want to kill my parents to save the economy" argument. Gotcha. Just to be clear, which of your parents would you off to save your 401k? I'll answer your question once I know where you land on that. > Two agencies lean toward a lab leak, others toward natural origin, none with high confidence (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi...). A lab leak origin is perhaps less likely than the alternative, but it's a entirely reasonable hypothesis. Plausible. The world you are looking for is plausible, and only one of the two, out of more than a dozen. Only one is plausible, not two. And plausible does not mean, in any way, "leaning toward." So no.

jasonlotito 3y ago

> rather than the human response. I can agree that the government's response in 2020 was horrible, and those people at the top should be held accountable for that awful response. > Early statistics showed the overwhelming majority of people would be fine if exposed to the virus, Hospitals were overwhelmed. That was the concern. The people who were "fine"? Many of them did so only because they were hospitalized. If we just exposed everyone to it all at once, it would have been a lot worse. > We can see that nations like Sweden which never locked down turned out fine. If by "turned out fine" you mean having significantly more deaths than neighboring countries and still suffering economic issues, sure. > survival was still the order of 98% Survival rate ignores long-term damage, which we are still learning about today, and is an ignorant statistic to use. It's why many disasters talk about casualties and not just deaths. It's like saying less than 1.5% of the children in Uvalde survived. > The virus emerged from Wuhan, where there was the virology lab... And not a single US Intelligence agency has come out strongly in favor of the Wuhan Lab theory, beyond one saying it's "plausible." > Supply chains shattered, or in other words, the trade war that Trump initiated against China had escalated... Monetary policy in response to the supply shocks caused widespread inflation and reduced living standards for young Americans with little wealth. The argument here being that it was Trump's trade war with China that increased inflation and reduced living standards...

orangecat 3y ago
If by "turned out fine" you mean having significantly more deaths than neighboring countries and still suffering economic issues, sure. And significantly fewer deaths than countries that closed schools for years or arrested people for walking alone in parks. Survival rate ignores long-term damage, which we are still learning about today, and is an ignorant statistic to use. Ok, just also make sure to include the psychological and economic costs of NPIs, which we are also still learning about. Remember the teacher's unions saying that learning loss was a myth and kids are "resilient"? And not a single US Intelligence agency has come out strongly in favor of the Wuhan Lab theory, beyond one saying it's "plausible." Two agencies lean toward a lab leak, others toward natural origin, none with high confidence (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi...). A lab leak origin is perhaps less likely than the alternative, but it's a entirely reasonable hypothesis.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  > And significantly fewer deaths than countries that closed schools for years or arrested people for walking alone in parks. Which country had schools closed for years? Not the US. > Ok, just also make sure to include the psychological and economic costs of NPIs, which we are also still learning about. Remember the teacher's unions saying that learning loss was a myth and kids are "resilient"? Oh, the "I want to kill my parents to save the economy" argument. Gotcha. Just to be clear, which of your parents would you off to save your 401k? I'll answer your question once I know where you land on that. > Two agencies lean toward a lab leak, others toward natural origin, none with high confidence (https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origi...). A lab leak origin is perhaps less likely than the alternative, but it's a entirely reasonable hypothesis. Plausible. The world you are looking for is plausible, and only one of the two, out of more than a dozen. Only one is plausible, not two. And plausible does not mean, in any way, "leaning toward." So no.