14 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Fauci has no credibility... he has flip flopped so many times... what to believe now. 

Unlike yourself of course. Care to share your credentials?

Here's Fauci's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci 

On 10/11/2020 at 7:01 PM, mr mr said:

we shut down the world to stop a virus that you had to get tested in most cases to even know you had it. 

 

You don't know you have HIV until you get tested too, or until it's too late lol.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/10/coronavirus-denier-sick-spreader/?arc404=true

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

If this is all you've got then it really isn't worth engaging.

Then don't.

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

If this is all you've got then it really isn't worth engaging.

Then why don't you dispute this; prove it's wrong.

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Because people commonly live with chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, asthma, heart disease etc. for several decades. 

So why don't we give all the necessary support to the vulnerable groups so they can isolate safely, and let the rest of the world get on with things? Surely that makes more sense than locking everybody down and causing long term global poverty (which will almost certainly cause more deaths than Covid). 

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So why don't we give all the necessary support to the vulnerable groups so they can isolate safely, and let the rest of the world get on with things? Surely that makes more sense than locking everybody down and causing long term global poverty (which will almost certainly cause more deaths than Covid). 

Those aren't the only two choices so no point in answering baiting questions.

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So why don't we give all the necessary support to the vulnerable groups so they can isolate safely, and let the rest of the world get on with things? Surely that makes more sense than locking everybody down and causing long term global poverty (which will almost certainly cause more deaths than Covid). 

Wow!! Some COMMON SENSE Thank you CG1 !!!

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Those aren't the only two choices so no point in answering baiting questions.

what other readily available option has there been since the beginning ?

i think his suggestion is a whole lot more sustainable

then the knee jerk option most governments around the world took and are now defending, in spite of the evidence of the idiocy of the action taken

21 minutes ago, faraday said:

Then why don't you dispute this; prove it's wrong.

Since you asked so nicely.

 

Currently there are some 620,000,000 people in the world over the age of 65 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/worlds-older-population-grows-dramatically. If left unchecked and without lockdown C19 is likely to widely spread and affect the majority of the worlds population. Taking Tounge Thaied's figures, if 5.4% of those 620 million potential infected die after contracting it, thats's nearly 35 million alone. That's not including the .003% under 19, the 0.02% in the 20-49 year old group, and the 0.5% in the 50 to 65 age group. If we add those together, we get 0.523% of the worlds population, which is another 35 million. That's 70 million in total or in simple terms - a greater number that died from the Spanish Flu (a template for what not to do with pandemics....... and lesson number one is don't carrying on as normal). 

We could isolate the most vulnerable (sounds like a good plan and should have been done from the beginning) but that still leaves 35 - 40 million dead. That's not even taking into account overwhelemed health services, C19 mutating into something even more deadly, the long term health affects on the infected, the economic damage such a number causes or even the moral call of knowingly letting 35 million people die to save money and open up economies.

 

The choices are very clear and they are either very bad or even worse. And don't think every Prime Minister, President, Chancellor or Chairmen doesn't know this and is acting in the only way they can. Do you think countries want to willfully kill their economies? Do you think this makes them popular with the voting public? Of course not but you know what makes you REALLY unpopular? Killing off large swathes of your population and that's what will happen if this is left to go it's own way.

29 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So why don't we give all the necessary support to the vulnerable groups so they can isolate safely, and let the rest of the world get on with things?

Because that is not possible. You will find vulnerable people are all over society - not only in nursery homes for the old; I believe they amount to around some 20-30 per cent of the population. They have families that may not be vulnerable. Do you want to isolate them from their families? Where?

 

Who is supposed to shop for them? WHo is supposed to do whatever else they need? Who is supposed to do their jobs while they are isolated?

 

 

28 minutes ago, farang51 said:

Because that is not possible. You will find vulnerable people are all over society - not only in nursery homes for the old; I believe they amount to around some 20-30 per cent of the population. They have families that may not be vulnerable. Do you want to isolate them from their families? Where?

 

Who is supposed to shop for them? WHo is supposed to do whatever else they need? Who is supposed to do their jobs while they are isolated?

 

 

Didn’t they isolate before during the lockdown.?

 

20-30. % seems a high number. 
 

Yes they should be isolated from their families If they are in the vulnerable group. Nothing to stop their families still shopping for them. I do it myself for vulnerable family members. 
 

They Army and other groups were used in the UK to shop for the vulnerable on the last lockdown. Let the government throw money at this rather than people being chucked on the scrap heap and unemployed and businesses going down the drain. 
 

What about  the jobs of the many perfectly healthy people who are now told they cannot work through no fault of their own. ?
 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Didn’t they isolate before during the lockdown.?

No, I don't think so. I certainly didn't; and I guess those that died didn't either. Lockdown is not the same as isolation.

 

21 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

20-30. % seems a high number.

Actually, it is on the low side. A list of underlying medical conditions that put adults of any age at increased risk for severe illness:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/evidence-table.html

Obesity alone gets you over 30 % in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

 

21 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Yes they should be isolated from their families If they are in the vulnerable group. Nothing to stop their families still shopping for them. I do it myself for vulnerable family members. 

Where would you isolate them? We are talking about more than 30 per cent of the population, at least in the USA.

 

Please be aware that without any kind of lockdown or restrictions, the need for isolation would be much higher and more tight that what we have seen yet in any country.

43 minutes ago, farang51 said:

No, I don't think so. I certainly didn't; and I guess those that died didn't either. Lockdown is not the same as isolation.

 

Actually, it is on the low side. A list of underlying medical conditions that put adults of any age at increased risk for severe illness:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/evidence-table.html

Obesity alone gets you over 30 % in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

 

Where would you isolate them? We are talking about more than 30 per cent of the population, at least in the USA.

 

Please be aware that without any kind of lockdown or restrictions, the need for isolation would be much higher and more tight that what we have seen yet in any country.

Ok. In the UK the elderly and vulnerable were told to isolate in their homes and provisions were made to ensure they had their shopping and essentials were catered for. 
 

I must be honest I wasn't including the obese in my thoughts as I have little sympathy for many in that condition particularly when it’s self imposed and certainly when it results in young people losing their jobs and any chance of getting one to make sure they get more protection. 
 

 

14 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

You don't know you have HIV until you get tested too, or until it's too late lol.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/symptoms-of-hiv

 

Within 2 to 4 weeks after infection with HIV, about two-thirds of people will have a flu-like illness. This is the body’s natural response to HIV infection. 

Flu-like symptoms can include:

• Fever
• Chills
• Rash
• Night sweats
• Muscle aches
• Sore throat
• Fatigue
• Swollen lymph nodes
• Mouth ulcers

These symptoms can last anywhere from a few days to several weeks.

12 hours ago, farang51 said:

No, I don't think so. I certainly didn't; and I guess those that died didn't either. Lockdown is not the same as isolation.

 

Actually, it is on the low side. A list of underlying medical conditions that put adults of any age at increased risk for severe illness:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/evidence-table.html

Obesity alone gets you over 30 % in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

 

Where would you isolate them? We are talking about more than 30 per cent of the population, at least in the USA.

 

Please be aware that without any kind of lockdown or restrictions, the need for isolation would be much higher and more tight that what we have seen yet in any country.

So with all these vulnerable people and an ifr of between .2-.3%, it seems over the top to lock down the whole world with stats like these. Everyone should assess their own risk profile and live accordingly.  If masks and social distancing work as everyone is being told they do, then those who are vulnerable should not be afraid.

14 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

So why don't we give all the necessary support to the vulnerable groups so they can isolate safely, and let the rest of the world get on with things? Surely that makes more sense than locking everybody down and causing long term global poverty (which will almost certainly cause more deaths than Covid). 

IMO some just don't want anyone carrying on life as usual if they choose to believe the worst.

Sweden didn't take that path- Sweden rocks.

13 hours ago, farang51 said:

Because that is not possible. You will find vulnerable people are all over society - not only in nursery homes for the old; I believe they amount to around some 20-30 per cent of the population. They have families that may not be vulnerable. Do you want to isolate them from their families? Where?

 

Who is supposed to shop for them? WHo is supposed to do whatever else they need? Who is supposed to do their jobs while they are isolated?

 

 

The most vulnerable are IMO in nursing homes, so all that is already being done for them.

An unsourced post re COVID cause of death claims has been removed, along with a reply.

 

Death certificates often list multiple contributing causes of death, but usually there is a primary cause along with other factors also present.

 

COVID Can Damage Your Heart
-COVID Damages Young People's Hearts Even When They Don't Have Symptoms
-COVID Can Damage Your Brain and Even Produce Dementia, Parkinson's
-Months After COVID Infection, You Can Still Lose Your Taste and Smell
-Many Get Chronic Fatigue—and Nobody Knows How Long It Will Last
-You Can Damage Your Fingers and Toes, and Even Lose Your Legs
-You May Think You're Getting Better, and Then It Kills You
-You May Not Even Know You Have It—Until You Infect Somebody Else.

 

Hard to believe anything now. Athletes are getting it alot now and they are not dying or having any problems. In fact after 2 weeks they are back playing again with no adverse affects.

So is it affecting fit healthy people or is it not?

On 10/13/2020 at 8:50 PM, scammed said:

what other readily available option has there been since the beginning ?

i think his suggestion is a whole lot more sustainable

then the knee jerk option most governments around the world took and are now defending, in spite of the evidence of the idiocy of the action taken

This answers you.

Start at 39:55.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

This answers you.

Start at 39:55.

 

 

it didnt, there was no alternatives to lockdown suggested in that video, just peddling propaganda

1 minute ago, scammed said:

it didnt, there was no alternatives to lockdown suggested in that video, just peddling propaganda

Yes there were. 

You obviously didn't even watch it.

Bye.

Just now, Jingthing said:

Yes there were. 

You obviously didn't even watch it.

Bye.

summarize the alternatives then, cause i sure didnt hear any

A post falsely claiming Bill Gates will profit from the sale of coronavirus vaccines has been removed.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/14/facebook-posts/no-evidence-gates-foundation-will-profit-coronavir/