What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Moxie]

Moxie....this "COVID" crisis couldn't possibly be making you this obtuse. The numbers that Federberg's article as well as your article cited were so miniscule that to base public policy on them would be beyond irrational. Federberg's article looked at 46 PICU's nationwide - and only 14 of them even had a patient to assess! On top of that, those 14 PICU's combined for a grand total of 48 - yes, 48 - cases across the United States. And 40 of those 48 had very severe underlying medical issues.

So for a country of 330 million total people with a youth population that as of 2010 was around 75 million you want the national policy to be based on a sample size of 48 kids (all but 2 of whom survived "COVID") with severe health problems such as diabetes, cancer, and sickle cell disease?

Speaking of strawman arguments, no one is arguing against caution. Like I have said many times, the Florida governor has done a far better job than the dumbass Democrat governor of New York. The key here is to protect the elderly and not pull the dumbass move of Cuomo and Wolf to send COVID patients into nursing homes. But that can be done without ruining the life of everyone else - except the scum of the Democratic Party who are doing this all for political reasons. But since that is your church/cult, you cannot criticize them even one bit.

Who's the one being obtuse? I explained to you twice that my point was about different symptoms, not numbers of cases in children. I thought it was interesting, not alarmist. But to say that you're not arguing against caution...you have been arguing for less than more all along. And now you've even called masks a "fashion statement" for Democrats. You're nuts, and you're a liar.

 

[calitennis127]

Who's the one being obtuse? I explained to you twice that my point was about different symptoms, not numbers of cases in children. I thought it was interesting, not alarmist. But to say that you're not arguing against caution...you have been arguing for less than more all along. And now you've even called masks a "fashion statement" for Democrats. You're nuts, and you're a liar.

Oh really? A liar? If you were concerned about lies, you could never be a Democrat after what the Democratic cult leader Adam Schiff just pulled with the Russian collusion narrative for three years. It's funny how you are silent about the sociopathic mendacity of him and other leading Democrats in the last 3 years, yet you accuse me of "lying" for disagreeing with your asinine contentions and simply calling you out for what you have actually stated.

It's not my fault that you are ridiculously inconsistent, and a saphead. I'm sorry that you and Federberg are clearly bitter about the Russian collusion narrative falling on its face in recent weeks and Obama being exposed as far more crooked than your bete noire Richard Nixon. You're taking out your frustration by being extra-sanctimonious about the coronavirus superstition.

As for your contention that your point was only about "different symptoms, not number of cases," this was your original post citing the New York Times article:

"They've just begun talking about this in NY, and Fauci just brought it up. Young children are demonstrating very differently. And just when we thought they weren't susceptible, as much:"

Clearly you never specified there that you were only talking about symptoms, not number of deaths. You were clearly trying to reinforce Federberg's broader point that children at large are at risk from this ridiculously overhyped disease, when in reality there are more people over the age of 100 who have died from it than people under the age of 30 who have died from it. But you clearly insinuated above that children are "susceptible" (your word, not mine). So who is the liar in saying that they were only talking about symptoms and not deaths (which, by the way, is an utterly trivial point anyway, given that nebulous "symptoms" have always been around for a lot of diseases and always will be)?

Sorry for looking at the actual data in the silly article you posted and pointing out just how utterly negligible it was.

 

[Moxie]

Oh really? A liar? If you were concerned about lies, you could never be a Democrat after what the Democratic cult leader Adam Schiff just pulled with the Russian collusion narrative for three years. It's funny how you are silent about the sociopathic mendacity of him and other leading Democrats in the last 3 years, yet you accuse me of "lying" for disagreeing with your asinine contentions and simply calling you out for what you have actually stated.

It's not my fault that you are ridiculously inconsistent, and a saphead. I'm sorry that you and Federberg are clearly bitter about the Russian collusion narrative falling on its face in recent weeks and Obama being exposed as far more crooked than your bete noire Richard Nixon. You're taking out your frustration by being extra-sanctimonious about the coronavirus superstition.

As for your contention that your point was only about "different symptoms, not number of cases," this was your original post citing the New York Times article:

"They've just begun talking about this in NY, and Fauci just brought it up. Young children are demonstrating very differently. And just when we thought they weren't susceptible, as much:"

Clearly you never specified there that you were only talking about symptoms, not number of deaths. You were clearly trying to reinforce Federberg's broader point that children at large are at risk from this ridiculously overhyped disease, when in reality there are more people over the age of 100 who have died from it than people under the age of 30 who have died from it. But you clearly insinuated above that children are "susceptible" (your word, not mine). So who is the liar in saying that they were only talking about symptoms and not deaths (which, by the way, is an utterly trivial point anyway, given that nebulous "symptoms" have always been around for a lot of diseases and always will be)?

Sorry for looking at the actual data in the silly article you posted and pointing out just how utterly negligible it was.

You've certainly advocated for anything but caution, and sneered at anyone who does, disbelieving our motivations for it, on top of it. You've also been changing your position as the results change. Russian collusion? Another strawman. You are incapable of forming a straight-forward argument. Look at how many assumptions you put in the bolded above.

And actually I did clarify that I was talking about how kids demonstrate different symptoms. You just keep ignoring that. Plus, you keep downplaying the deaths that are happening, insisting that essentially these people would have died anyway, and that at least the kids had conditions that made them susceptible. Does that make it OK that these kids died from COVID? (And I don't know what your science is to back that up.) Does that make it OK that anyone died from COVID? You call it "over-hyped," and you debate how the deaths are listed, but you demonstrate not one ounce of sympathy for the fact that it is happening, because that doesn't fit your political narrative. Oh, wait...sorry...your sympathy is for those affected by the lockdown. Some of us are actually able to be sorry for both things, and weigh the effects, and relative merits of choices. But you're not able to read any subtlety.

 

[Moxie]

...and Obama being exposed as far more crooked than your bete noire Richard Nixon. You're taking out your frustration by being extra-sanctimonious about the coronavirus superstition.

I left off commenting on your remark about Obama until I could read more about where Trump was going with this "Obamagate" business. Turns out, he has no idea, just the usual blustering, shouting and tweeting. He actually can't answer the question. The Atlantic has an idea, though. And they can tell you why he doesn't want to answer it.

How to Understand ‘Obamagate’

Trump’s latest catchphrase is an attempt to recapture the force that first propelled him to political prominence.

www.theatlantic.com

What makes you think that Nixon is my "bête noire?" Sure, he was arguably one of the most corrupt presidents in our history, but also massively complicated, and I don't recall talking about him much around here. He's not my least favorite president, I can tell you that. And as to your claiming that you argue for any caution, vis-a-vis COVID-19, I bolded the above for clarity...you call it a "superstition."

 

[Federberg]

yup... this really happened!

South Korean football team apologises for using sex dolls to fill stands

K-League club FC Seoul said the dolls, used to make stadiums look less empty, had been ordered inadvertently after a ‘misunderstanding’

www.theguardian.com

 

[mrzz]

yup... this really happened!

South Korean football team apologises for using sex dolls to fill stands

K-League club FC Seoul said the dolls, used to make stadiums look less empty, had been ordered inadvertently after a ‘misunderstanding’

www.theguardian.com

Why did they apologise? Were the dolls used?

 

[calitennis127]

I left off commenting on your remark about Obama until I could read more about where Trump was going with this "Obamagate" business.

And of course you only went to left-wing sources, which have repeatedly been wrong about major issues such as the Russian collusion narrative.

Turns out, he has no idea, just the usual blustering, shouting and tweeting.

No, he definitely has an idea. Unlike you, he knows the facts of the case. He simply did not explain them lucidly enough for left-wing audiences (of which you are a part) whose gatekeepers of information keep them in the dark about anything that might reflect poorly on the Democratic Party. The Democratic media has trained their readers to believe that every single accusation of corruption or moral imperfection against a Democrat, especially a deified cult leader like Obama, is a "conspiracy theory." They do this, of course, while peddling baseless conspiracy theories about Republicans continuously.

He actually can't answer the question. The Atlantic has an idea, though. And they can tell you why he doesn't want to answer it.

I read the article. It's completely stupid and keeps readers like you in the dark. You really should consider reading some right-wing sources - at the very least, mainstream right-leaning sources like the Wall Street Journal and New York Post - to balance your views. At times you seriously are like a teenager who has read one magazine over and over and thinks that it provides all the answers to everything about the world. Why don't you start being a liberal and stop being a Democrat? You can't be both at the same time.

Now, as for the facts of the case: the allegation against Obama is that he illicitly directed a massive spying operation against the Trump campaign and Trump administration simply over political differences. In other words, he used the power of the government to have a political opponent investigated and harassed without any sound legal basis. How do we know this? Well, these are just a few pieces to the puzzle.

- We know from the December 2019 IG report by Michael Horowitz that the FBI operation "Crossfire Hurricane" for investigating the Trump campaign began on July 31, 2016

- On September 2, 2016 FBI agent Lisa Page texted her boyfriend Peter Strzok (another FBI agent) that "potus wants to know everything we're doing."

- Also from the IG report: we know that the Clinton-funded dossier was used to get 4 FISA warrants on Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and the IG found a total of 17 errors and omissions across those 4 applications.

- Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats on December 29th, 2016, which was the exact same day that Sergei Kislyak called Flynn. It's clear that Obama ordered this expulsion to prompt Kislyak to call Flynn (the incoming National Security Adviser), so the FBI could monitor Flynn and frame him - and that's exactly what they did.

- On January 5th, Obama held an Oval Office meeting with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Biden, Susan Rice, and Sally Yates. According to Yates' testimony to the House Intel Committee, she learned about the January 29th call at that meeting from Obama himself.


So let's piece all this together for you Moxie.....when we look specifically at the September 2, 2016 text from Page to Strzok and the details of the January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting, it is plain as day that Obama was closely tracking and quietly supervising a massive and illegal surveillance operation against the Trump campaign/new Trump administration.

What law was broken? There are a multitude of statutes on the books that prevent this, obviously. If a Republican was ever to do this to a Democrat, your precious Washington Post would act as though a genocide had occurred (like they did with the very petty shenanigans of Watergate). What Obama just did to the Trump campaign and the Trump administration was far worse than anything Nixon did.

When Trump said there were crimes committed, he was referring to the list I compiled above. He was prompted to comment by the recently declassified information having to do with the Flynn case, not the fact that Obama is a half-white person who went to a private academy in Hawaii. I'm sorry that you did not know any of the info on that list. Your sources obviously keep you ignorant. And for you, ignorance is clearly bliss. You tell yourself that you know what's going on when you actually don't have a clue.

 

[calitennis127]

yup... this really happened!

South Korean football team apologises for using sex dolls to fill stands

K-League club FC Seoul said the dolls, used to make stadiums look less empty, had been ordered inadvertently after a ‘misunderstanding’

www.theguardian.com

Well Federberg…..looks like you may have finally found the prostitutes Trump supposedly urinated on in Moscow. Looks like the dossier was accurate after all!

This story is the missing link to the Russian collusion narrative. You had it right all along. The Trump campaign used Carter Page's backchannel connections to the Kremlin to have those dolls shipped from Moscow to South Korea. How clever! Too bad Mueller did not cover this in his "report."

 

[calitennis127]

Why did they apologise? Were the dolls used?

Yes, Joe Biden and Harvey Weinstein were there. Biden sniffed them and groped them. Afterward someone asked what they felt like, and he said he could not remember.

The dolls also demonstrated a higher IQ than Kirsten Gillebrand and did not claim to be of a different race (like Elizabeth Warren). The only problem with them is that they may have had COVID-19, but since they were below the age of 30 and did not have any comorbidities, they should be good to go. Moxie would still advise social distancing for them - very piously. Social distancing is so important. It's about saving lives.

 

[calitennis127]

More evidence that leading Democrats know just how stupid the lockdowns and face mask policies are and are only pretending that "COVID" is a serious threat so they can destroy the economy and attack Trump.....


CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins caught removing face mask when she thought camera was off

May 16, 2020

CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins caught removing face mask when she thought camera was off

Masks for thee but not for me. CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins may have worn her mask during the White House press briefing Friday, but she promptly removed the facial covering when t…

nypost.com

 

[calitennis127]

And more wisdom from Sweden, defying the dictates of the Democratic Party cult in the United States. Bravo to them for that.

Sweden Rejects Forcing Citizens to Wear Face Masks Amid Outbreak
'Face masks in public spaces do not provide any greater protection to the population,' Swedish health official said

Sweden Rejects Forcing Citizens to Wear Face Masks Amid Outbreak

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Federberg]

Well Federberg…..looks like you may have finally found the prostitutes Trump supposedly urinated on in Moscow. Looks like the dossier was accurate after all!

This story is the missing link to the Russian collusion narrative. You had it right all along. The Trump campaign used Carter Page's backchannel connections to the Kremlin to have those dolls shipped from Moscow to South Korea. How clever! Too bad Mueller did not cover this in his "report."

dear Lord! Don't you get tired?

 

[Moxie]

And of course you only went to left-wing sources, which have repeatedly been wrong about major issues such as the Russian collusion narrative.

No, he definitely has an idea. Unlike you, he knows the facts of the case. He simply did not explain them lucidly enough for left-wing audiences (of which you are a part) whose gatekeepers of information keep them in the dark about anything that might reflect poorly on the Democratic Party. The Democratic media has trained their readers to believe that every single accusation of corruption or moral imperfection against a Democrat, especially a deified cult leader like Obama, is a "conspiracy theory." They do this, of course, while peddling baseless conspiracy theories about Republicans continuously.

I read the article. It's completely stupid and keeps readers like you in the dark. You really should consider reading some right-wing sources - at the very least, mainstream right-leaning sources like the Wall Street Journal and New York Post - to balance your views. At times you seriously are like a teenager who has read one magazine over and over and thinks that it provides all the answers to everything about the world. Why don't you start being a liberal and stop being a Democrat? You can't be both at the same time.

Now, as for the facts of the case: the allegation against Obama is that he illicitly directed a massive spying operation against the Trump campaign and Trump administration simply over political differences. In other words, he used the power of the government to have a political opponent investigated and harassed without any sound legal basis. How do we know this? Well, these are just a few pieces to the puzzle.

- We know from the December 2019 IG report by Michael Horowitz that the FBI operation "Crossfire Hurricane" for investigating the Trump campaign began on July 31, 2016

- On September 2, 2016 FBI agent Lisa Page texted her boyfriend Peter Strzok (another FBI agent) that "potus wants to know everything we're doing."

- Also from the IG report: we know that the Clinton-funded dossier was used to get 4 FISA warrants on Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and the IG found a total of 17 errors and omissions across those 4 applications.

- Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats on December 29th, 2016, which was the exact same day that Sergei Kislyak called Flynn. It's clear that Obama ordered this expulsion to prompt Kislyak to call Flynn (the incoming National Security Adviser), so the FBI could monitor Flynn and frame him - and that's exactly what they did.

- On January 5th, Obama held an Oval Office meeting with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Biden, Susan Rice, and Sally Yates. According to Yates' testimony to the House Intel Committee, she learned about the January 29th call at that meeting from Obama himself.


So let's piece all this together for you Moxie.....when we look specifically at the September 2, 2016 text from Page to Strzok and the details of the January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting, it is plain as day that Obama was closely tracking and quietly supervising a massive and illegal surveillance operation against the Trump campaign/new Trump administration.

What law was broken? There are a multitude of statutes on the books that prevent this, obviously. If a Republican was ever to do this to a Democrat, your precious Washington Post would act as though a genocide had occurred (like they did with the very petty shenanigans of Watergate). What Obama just did to the Trump campaign and the Trump administration was far worse than anything Nixon did.

When Trump said there were crimes committed, he was referring to the list I compiled above. He was prompted to comment by the recently declassified information having to do with the Flynn case, not the fact that Obama is a half-white person who went to a private academy in Hawaii. I'm sorry that you did not know any of the info on that list. Your sources obviously keep you ignorant. And for you, ignorance is clearly bliss. You tell yourself that you know what's going on when you actually don't have a clue.

How about Forbes, then, which is rated "neutral:"

Obamagate Isn’t A Scandal — It’s Unmasked Something Worse

Don't be misled - Obamagate isn't a scandal. It is an extraordinary example of leadership by distraction.

www.forbes.com

You seem to forget that, while there was an investigation into the Trump campaign and into the Russian interference in our elections, which were both fair to have done, given what went down, this investigation was never exposed to the public before the election was settled. And these are two separate questions. Despite what you keep insisting, I actually don't think there was "collusion" between the Russians and the Trump campaign on the elections. I think there are possibly some shady deals in there, which we should know more about, but we can't see the tax returns. My real question is if Trump is beholden at all to the Russians.

What we DO know is that Russia interfered in our elections. What we also know is that while Comey put his finger on the scale by making public an investigation into Andrew Wiener's computer, days before the election, the American people were NOT told about the Russia investigation, basically because Obama thought that would look biased, and because he thought Hillary would win, anyway. By trying not to appear biased, he left out important information and unbalanced to information out there, just before the election.

Trump has not be clear about what the hell he's talking about with this "Obamagate," and don't pretend he has. You're just reading in, as everyone is. As the article says, it's a diversion. It's also a start on smearing Obama, who is still very popular and will surely campaign for Biden, and of course, Biden, by extension. Also, downgrading Obama appeals to the base. It's a campaign tactic, and when you've got little, start making shit up. That certainly seems to be the Trump approach.

I don't read the WSJ because it's behind a pay wall, but I do read the NY Post, and I have for years. I live in NYC, you moron. But I don't kid myself where it's coming from. Still with the likes of Breitbart out there, I don't find it entirely egregious, no matter Murdoch's efforts. It's still has a great snark and attitude. And surely the best tabloid headlines in the US.

 

[Federberg]

in case you missed this @mrzz

 

[mrzz]

in case you missed this @mrzz

There is no way to describe how utterly dishonest the person who wrote this article is. She uses one thing that is obviously true, that lockdowns are bad in itself, to propagate a complete gigantic lie, that Bolsonaro has -- and is defending -- a real and viable alternative to self imposed isolation and partial/total lockdowns. Also, that governors around the country are blindly imposing lockdowns as if they had other options that they chose to ignore.

Bolsonaro NEVER had any plan, NEVER suggested anything, NEVER published any guidelines, NEVER went to public to propose any kind of concrete steps. Period. PERIOD. The only thing Bolsonaro did was to publicly state that anything that hurts the economy is bad, say generically that we must "protect the vulnerable" and tout hydroxychloroquine just because Trump mentioned (he basically just parroted it, with zero knowledge of what it was, but anyway, this is irrelevant).

The first paragraph of this absolute piece of shit contains its first lie:

"Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro opposes the stringent lockdown some state governors have
imposed on the Brazilian economy, and for weeks he’s been battling political opponents who
favor it. On Friday his health minister resigned but what is more important is that the
arguments to open with common-sense precautions are gaining ground internationally."

LIE: Bolsonaro has been battling EVEN THE GOVERNORS WHO WANTED TO CLOSE (AND NOW OPEN) THE ECONOMY WITH COMMON-SENSE PRECAUTIONS. He battled EVERYONE who wanted to close or slow down ANYTHING.

The second paragraph contains a truth that has basically ZERO bearing in Brazil's reality:

"A recently released National Bureau of Economic Research working paper finds that Covid-19
policies targeted at the most vulnerable populations “significantly outperform” broad
lockdowns: “Most of the gains can be realized by having stricter lockdown policies on the oldest
group.” "

Brazil has NOT THE RESOURCES to protect the vulnerable populations. What the fuck? The population density in urban areas is mind-blogging, in a lot of cases people has no access to piped water. How the fuck is possible to protect the vulnerable? The fucking bathroom my wife has to use in the hospital (largest in latin america) she works has its light bulbs burnt out for weeks and workers need to pee and shit in the dark. These people really should be executed just for saying this kind of shit.

A lot of places here simply do not have any other fucking option. That monstrous bitch wrote that we have a large number of ICU's, well, first this is on paper, and second -- and that is an important part -- those ICU's are HEAVILY CONCENTRATED. A lot of places have ZERO ICU's, a lot of governors and mayors are simply seeing the collapse of the health care system. So, yes, in some places the economy is shut down with very little reason, but in others is simply the only viable option given the situation.

This giant piece of shit who is the president here, and the giant pieces of shit who supported it, NEVER had a plan, NEVER proposed anything remotely close to a concrete action to deal with this (protecting the vulnerable, to use his words), and OPPOSED the ones who tried to go for a rational, close-as-little-as-you-can, approach.

I will give you one example. The town I grew up is called Florianópolis. I don't like the place, but for some fucking unbelievable reason the mayor is rational. He was probably the first mayor in the country to buy tests (back in January). He applied random tests in the population since the beginning, so he is controlling a projected number of total cases from the reported ones. They are doing contact tracing as hard as they can. They are gauging how much the economy is open or close by two weeks projections of percentage ICU occupation. This is rational, right? Now ask if fucking Bolsonaro or his fucking supporters support this guy? BTW, most cities in the country (and that includes SP and RJ) have zero chance of doing this, either for the lack of resources, or for the size of the population (SP and RJ case).

I really HATE when I see people meticulously manipulating particular truths to propagate cheap lies.

 

[Federberg]

There is no way to describe how utterly dishonest the person who wrote this article is. She uses one thing that is obviously true, that lockdowns are bad in itself, to propagate a complete gigantic lie, that Bolsonaro has -- and is defending -- a real and viable alternative to self imposed isolation and partial/total lockdowns. Also, that governors around the country are blindly imposing lockdowns as if they had other options that they chose to ignore.

Bolsonaro NEVER had any plan, NEVER suggested anything, NEVER published any guidelines, NEVER went to public to propose any kind of concrete steps. Period. PERIOD. The only thing Bolsonaro did was to publicly state that anything that hurts the economy is bad, say generically that we must "protect the vulnerable" and tout hydroxychloroquine just because Trump mentioned (he basically just parroted it, with zero knowledge of what it was, but anyway, this is irrelevant).

The first paragraph of this absolute piece of shit contains its first lie:

"Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro opposes the stringent lockdown some state governors have
imposed on the Brazilian economy, and for weeks he’s been battling political opponents who
favor it. On Friday his health minister resigned but what is more important is that the
arguments to open with common-sense precautions are gaining ground internationally."

LIE: Bolsonaro has been battling EVEN THE GOVERNORS WHO WANTED TO CLOSE (AND NOW OPEN) THE ECONOMY WITH COMMON-SENSE PRECAUTIONS. He battled EVERYONE who wanted to close or slow down ANYTHING.

The second paragraph contains a truth that has basically ZERO bearing in Brazil's reality:

"A recently released National Bureau of Economic Research working paper finds that Covid-19
policies targeted at the most vulnerable populations “significantly outperform” broad
lockdowns: “Most of the gains can be realized by having stricter lockdown policies on the oldest
group.” "

Brazil has NOT THE RESOURCES to protect the vulnerable populations. What the fuck? The population density in urban areas is mind-blogging, in a lot of cases people has no access to piped water. How the fuck is possible to protect the vulnerable? The fucking bathroom my wife has to use in the hospital (largest in latin america) she works has its light bulbs burnt out for weeks and workers need to pee and shit in the dark. These people really should be executed just for saying this kind of shit.

A lot of places here simply do not have any other fucking option. That monstrous bitch wrote that we have a large number of ICU's, well, first this is on paper, and second -- and that is an important part -- those ICU's are HEAVILY CONCENTRATED. A lot of places have ZERO ICU's, a lot of governors and mayors are simply seeing the collapse of the health care system. So, yes, in some places the economy is shut down with very little reason, but in others is simply the only viable option given the situation.

This giant piece of shit who is the president here, and the giant pieces of shit who supported it, NEVER had a plan, NEVER proposed anything remotely close to a concrete action to deal with this (protecting the vulnerable, to use his words), and OPPOSED the ones who tried to go for a rational, close-as-little-as-you-can, approach.

I will give you one example. The town I grew up is called Florianópolis. I don't like the place, but for some fucking unbelievable reason the mayor is rational. He was probably the first mayor in the country to buy tests (back in January). He applied random tests in the population since the beginning, so he is controlling a projected number of total cases from the reported ones. They are doing contact tracing as hard as they can. They are gauging how much the economy is open or close by two weeks projections of percentage ICU occupation. This is rational, right? Now ask if fucking Bolsonaro or his fucking supporters support this guy? BTW, most cities in the country (and that includes SP and RJ) have zero chance of doing this, either for the lack of resources, or for the size of the population (SP and RJ case).

I really HATE when I see people meticulously manipulating particular truths to propagate cheap lies.

I figured as much. Murdoch owns WSJ so don't expect anything but the Fox party line from them I guess. I do however agree in principle with the thesis that in the developing world lockdowns have to be balanced with the fact that the masses need to survive day to day. Not like they can buy in bulk if they don't have refrigerators. It's a terrible dilemma

 

[mrzz]

I figured as much. Murdoch owns WSJ so don't expect anything but the Fox party line from them I guess. I do however agree in principle with the thesis that in the developing world lockdowns have to be balanced with the fact that the masses need to survive day to day. Not like they can buy in bulk if they don't have refrigerators. It's a terrible dilemma

Completely agree with the thesis in principle. But in order to balance things, people need to think, to begin with. Assess the situation, get the data, make a plan. You know, those rational things...

And, again, this is completely detached from whatever Bolsonaro is doing (sorry, folks, for keep citing an obscure leader from a developing country, but that is the point of the conversation in our little sub-thread here). There is no dilemma for him. His plan is "just do nothing" or "buy some miraculous medicine that I can only pray it works". The mere fact that we are having this conversation in a (loose) connection with someone defending this pinnacle of incompetence annoys me to the roots of my balls, just in case I still haven't let it clear

 

[calitennis127]

This whole thing is a fucking scam.....damn was I right about how much it was being exaggerated in early March.

UK has More COVID-19 Deaths Over Age 90 than Under Age 64

END THE LOCKDOWN: UK has More COVID-19 Deaths Over Age 90 than Under Age 64

Although the mainstream liberal media continues to lie spread rumors about the Coronavirus pandemic the truth is still getting out. Back on March 15, 2020, The Gateway Pundit reported on the coronavirus death rates in Italy. The Italian government released numbers on the coronavirus in mid...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Federberg]

This whole thing is a fucking scam.....damn was I right about how much it was being exaggerated in early March.

UK has More COVID-19 Deaths Over Age 90 than Under Age 64

END THE LOCKDOWN: UK has More COVID-19 Deaths Over Age 90 than Under Age 64

Although the mainstream liberal media continues to lie spread rumors about the Coronavirus pandemic the truth is still getting out. Back on March 15, 2020, The Gateway Pundit reported on the coronavirus death rates in Italy. The Italian government released numbers on the coronavirus in mid...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

who has claimed that younger folk are more vulnerable than older. What am I missing here?

 

[calitennis127]

who has claimed that younger folk are more vulnerable than older. What am I missing here?

Lol.....many have claimed that this virus is a serious threat to people under 30, when it is barely any threat to people under 60 and only a minor threat to people ages 60 to 80. The one country whose experience scared the hell out of everyone across the world was Italy, and its numbers are highly suspect (even factoring in that most of the deceased were very old), an issue raised by the video I posted over a week ago of the Italian leader Vittorio Sgarbi.

You just put up a post a few days ago to argue that this virus is a substantial threat to kids. It's not. It's not even a significant threat to people under 65. This whole thing has been an exaggerated scam that was never at any point worth sacrificing jobs, livelihoods, mental health, physical health, and cultural life for.

You may have to admit that you were duped by this one just as much as the Russian collusion narrative. The only place where it ever got serious was New York, and that's because it has stupid leaders, a stupid governor, and a villainous health force which left a lot of people to die according to multiple accounts. Aside from New York (which was mostly a case of Democratic Party incompetence), what else does your argument have going for it? Absolutely nothing.