Virus Schmirus

[godawgs28]

I keep hearing this lunacy that by going out you are putting other innocent vulnerable people at risk. Hello! The only people that you are putting at risk are other people that are ALSO out and about taking the same risk. It completely defies logic! And no media or their guests have mentioned this the entire time!

Some believe in the fallacy that this virus will just go away if we just hide in our houses long enough, so therefore by being out and about, "we" are prolonging the agony of not getting down to zero cases.

Such idiocy

[Donn Beach]

https://deadline.com/2020/04/major-leag ... 202908699/

[gil]

I keep hearing this lunacy that by going out you are putting other innocent vulnerable people at risk. Hello! The only people that you are putting at risk are other people that are ALSO out and about taking the same risk. It completely defies logic! And no media or their guests have mentioned this the entire time!

Some believe in the fallacy that this virus will just go away if we just hide in our houses long enough, so therefore by being out and about, "we" are prolonging the agony of not getting down to zero cases.

Such idiocy

Two questions:
1. If there were ZERO social contact, would't the virus die out? My understanding is that a virus needs a living host. People currently infected would either recover or die. How would the virus spread then?

2. What about nurses and doctors and people working in groceries and ... ? These are not people who are "choosing" to be out, the way I am. Aren't they more at risk if there are more people out and about, and therefore increasing the potential spread of the virus and the number of people who are infected?

[D-train]

I keep hearing this lunacy that by going out you are putting other innocent vulnerable people at risk. Hello! The only people that you are putting at risk are other people that are ALSO out and about taking the same risk. It completely defies logic! And no media or their guests have mentioned this the entire time!

Some believe in the fallacy that this virus will just go away if we just hide in our houses long enough, so therefore by being out and about, "we" are prolonging the agony of not getting down to zero cases.

Such idiocy

Two questions:
1. If there were ZERO social contact, would't the virus die out? My understanding is that a virus needs a living host. People currently infected would either recover or die. How would the virus spread then?

2. What about nurses and doctors and people working in groceries and ... ? These are not people who are "choosing" to be out, the way I am. Aren't they more at risk if there are more people out and about, and therefore increasing the potential spread of the virus and the number of people who are infected?

There are no restrictions on grocery stores so that wouldn't change.

[gil]

Some believe in the fallacy that this virus will just go away if we just hide in our houses long enough, so therefore by being out and about, "we" are prolonging the agony of not getting down to zero cases.

Such idiocy

Two questions:
1. If there were ZERO social contact, would't the virus die out? My understanding is that a virus needs a living host. People currently infected would either recover or die. How would the virus spread then?

2. What about nurses and doctors and people working in groceries and ... ? These are not people who are "choosing" to be out, the way I am. Aren't they more at risk if there are more people out and about, and therefore increasing the potential spread of the virus and the number of people who are infected?

There are no restrictions on grocery stores so that wouldn't change.

Here is what I am wondering about: I am isolating myself, other than grocery store, and I go once per week. So unless I contact the virus at that store, the workers don't have much to worry about from me. But what if I were getting together with my buddies, going to bars, whatever ... you know, being in contact with people who might be infected? Doesn't that increase the chances that I will become infected? And therefore increase the danger to the grocery store workers from my weekly grocery trips? (Obviously if I go out and never contact the virus, there isn't a problem. BUT ... )

[D-train]

Yes you would but if you ask the millions of people who've got laid off if they'd rather have a job at a grocery store or sitting at home broke I think they will choose the former. Even if it means a higher risk of getting infected.

[gil]

Yes you would but if you ask the millions of people who've got laid off if they'd rather have a job at a grocery store or sitting at home broke I think they will choose the former. Even if it means a higher risk of getting infected.

Excellent point. I'd love to see some reliable data on this.

The point I wanted to make is that there are people who HAVE to be out and working, and they are more in danger if fewer of us are to isolating.

Another thought: the people who went to spring break in Florida all did so willingly. They were around others who were willing to take the risk, as you said in the post I responded to. A very good argument. But the infections spread at Florida spring break then "seeded" breakouts in other places, and affected hospital personnel, police and fire, etc., not only people *choosing* to be out and taking risks.

[D-train]

Yes you would but if you ask the millions of people who've got laid off if they'd rather have a job at a grocery store or sitting at home broke I think they will choose the former. Even if it means a higher risk of getting infected.

Excellent point. I'd love to see some reliable data on this.

The point I wanted to make is that there are people who HAVE to be out and working, and they are more in danger if fewer of us are to isolating.

Another thought: the people who went to spring break in Florida all did so willingly. They were around others who were willing to take the risk, as you said in the post I responded to. A very good argument. But the infections spread at Florida spring break then "seeded" breakouts in other places, and affected hospital personnel, police and fire, etc., not only people *choosing* to be out and taking risks.

Its a valid point, Gil. I appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

[bpj]

Good points from everyone.

What is needed is a fair and impartial media that reports facts.

Wrong about nearly everything in this Corona Virus situation. Even fighting Trump tooth and nail about a drug that turned out to save lives?!?

We need to be able to trust our media and government again. It has literally become a matter of life and death.

[Moe Gibbs]

Article submitted by "Headlock Press"
·
I’m Confused
Right now, New York City is saying it fit 60,000 patients into 3,000 hospital beds. So why are the New York Times and CNN reporting on the Chief Public Servant's poor response to the “pandemic” ... in January? They just told us all the projections were off, the actual numbers are much lower than reported, that we’ve “squashed the curve,” and the country will be open for business soon. So why is the news media still publishing New York's 750 new deaths every day when the number is obviously inflated? Astronomically inflated.
Here are the facts.
In 2017-2018, flu deaths in the U.S. suddenly doubled, without warning. At the peak of flu season that year, February, New York State had 1,000 deaths, 10,000 were hospitalized, and the hospitals said they were stretched to the limit.
Over the last 10 days, New York State claims to have had 9,000 deaths caused by coronavirus. That means 90,000 hospitalizations. If one-third of them were home deaths, like New York State is trying to claim, it's still 60,000 hospitalizations.
If New York hospitals were stretched to the breaking point at 1,000 deaths and 10,000 patients in February, where are they fitting 9,000 deaths and 60,000 new patients -- over only 10 days?
New York and all the media outlets are claiming the hospitals were working at 2000% over capacity during the height of this pandemic, a week ago. It's so impossible it sounds like a practical joke.
That’s the story, New York Times. That’s the story, CNN. That’s the story, folks. So why are the Times and CNN talking about the beginning of the “outbreak" and how we should stay locked down until the November election? Or at least as long as possible?
THERE'S A GLARING FRAUD BEING PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. THIS FRAUD IS KEEPING THE COUNTRY IN A LOCKDOWN. YOUR JOB IS TO REPORT THE NEWS, "NEWS MEDIA," NOT CONCEAL IT OR AID-AND-ABET CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
Doesn’t this bother anybody else but me? How can anybody just let 57,000 patients go unaccounted for? Not to mention 9,000 corpses.
And the Mercy Ship is still docked in New York Harbor, still unused, a week after the peak of the pandemic.
It’s almost like a movie. Isn’t it? A farce. Either that, or it’s a practical joke.
Then again, maybe they haven’t announced the arrests yet.
P.S.: Dr. Wrongway Fauci stuck his expert foot in his mouth again yesterday. He said now that New York has reached its peak in infections, he’s hoping for the number of new admissions to drop. But he doesn’t have to hope. Two days ago, the Times said there were only 200 new admissions in NYC hospitals. That’s the lag. Remember Doc? The 9,000 deaths recently are from the 60,000 patients a week ago. Maybe 90,000. Depends how you count.