The coronavirus scam

[expos4ever]

I see. You want to post something on multi-layer cloth masks, something that was not advocated from the beginning, nor was mandated later, nor has been practiced by a large number of Americans.

Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns ; which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation.

There is a huge difference between saying "masks can also block fine droplets" and saying something like, "It has been scientifically demonstrated that cloth masks block 80% to 90% of covid particles in normal use." We know what the science says, and it does not say "cloth masks can be depended upon to block most covid particles." What science says is "cloth masks CAN block covid particles."

13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5,6,15,16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets,4 with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control

Does the science say masks consistently block 50% to 70% of fine covid droplets? No, it does not. It says, again, masks CAN block most fine particles ( we assume that means under certain situations and in certain conditions.)

Your misrepresentations are becoming more subtle. In this post you try to trick the reader into believing that a statement of the form "masks CAN block particles" is inconsistent with the assertion that there is reasonable evidence that they also do, in fact, block particles.

But these are not inconsistent.

 

[way 2 go]

LA Times Says Lockdowns Saved Lives With No Economic Impact | Cool Propaganda, Bro​

keep the scam going

 

[way 2 go]

Florida ruining the narrative

 

[way 2 go]

Texas ruining the narrative

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problem is that some of the 10% who are at high risk for serious disease are not immune (even if they are vaccinated as vaccines are not 100% effective).

So what? At least you don't shut down an entire economy and kill more people than you're trying to save.

Your second claim is obviously incorrect.

Because you say so?

First, even if this 90% had the best of intentions and would self-quarantine if they have symptoms, covid can be transmitted before symptoms appear. Surely you know this. And, in any event, human nature being what it is, this 90% do not all have good intentions and many would not self-quarantine.

And? So what?

Again, the alternative (which was chosen over what we've done for the past couple of centuries) is to shut down an economy, terrorize everyone and deface them, lock people up in their own homes.

The Bible tells us how to deal with infectious diseases, and it has worked well for the past 3500 years.

Why go against that? What's different?

 

[Jefferson]

Why go against that? What's different?

Trump wasn't in office back then.

 

[way 2 go]

IF ivermectin works on this scale it will show how much we've been lied to

Just three weeks after adding Ivermectin, Delhi now leads India out of the deadly second surge of the COVID pandemic. Cases that had peaked at 28,395 on April 20 plummeted nearly 80% to just 6,430 on May 15. Deaths peaked May 4, and now they are also down 25%.
...

Meanwhile, three other Indian states have followed Goa’s lead in adding Ivermectin: Uttarkhand, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh. And, as expected, they have seen a drop in new daily cases as well, with Uttar Pradesh down nearly 75% from a peak of 37,944 just four days after they began following the April 20 AIIMS guidance to just 10,505 on May 16.

 

[marke]

Your misrepresentations are becoming more subtle. In this post you try to trick the reader into believing that a statement of the form "masks CAN block particles" is inconsistent with the assertion that there is reasonable evidence that they also do, in fact, block particles.

But these are not inconsistent.

Since they said "can block also drop fine droplets" then you have no right to complain that I hold them to that.

 

[marke]

LA Times Says Lockdowns Saved Lives With No Economic Impact | Cool Propaganda, Bro​

keep the scam going

Leftist socialist fascist manipulators: 'We tell you science proves destroying the economy is essential to saving lives and we resolutely condemn all those who do not believe us.'

 

[marke]

Florida ruining the narrative

View attachment 1085

Jack-booted democrat fascists: 'You will obey our orders or we will make your lives so miserable you will wish you had never been born.'

 

[marke]

Texas ruining the narrative

View attachment 1086

Jod Biden: 'We don't give a crap about facts. We are only interested in what our hand-picked left-wing scientists tell us is the truth.'

 

[expos4ever]

So what? At least you don't shut down an entire economy and kill more people than you're trying to save.

It would be nice if you have some actual evidence or serious argument to support this claim: how do you know the restrictions have killed (and will kill) more people than covid has killed (and will kill) in the absence of restrictions?

 

[expos4ever]

Because you say so?

Misrepresentation. I explained why. Here it is again:

Your second claim is obviously incorrect. First, even if this 90% had the best of intentions and would self-quarantine if they have symptoms, covid can be transmitted before symptoms appear. Surely you know this. And, in any event, human nature being what it is, this 90% do not all have good intentions and many would not self-quarantine.

 

[expos4ever]

Again, the alternative (which was chosen over what we've done for the past couple of centuries) is to shut down an economy, terrorize everyone and deface them, lock people up in their own homes.

The Bible tells us how to deal with infectious diseases, and it has worked well for the past 3500 years.

Why go against that? What's different?

You are not dealing with the issue I challenged you on. Let's do this the hard way if you insist. You initially posted this:

Did you also know that 90% of the population, which is at very low risk, while they may spread the virus to one at higher risk, cannot infect them if they are immune, either through vaccine or prior infection?

And did you know that 90% of the population can protect the remaining 10% simply by self-quarantining when they are sick or show symptoms, allowing the rest of the population to go about their daily lives as usual?

I responded by pointing out:

1 - your first statement is a non-sequitir - of course, a person cannot be infected if they are immune. No one is claiming otherwise
2 - the 90% will not all know that they are contagious even if they do intend to self-quarantine to protect the 10 %. You surely know this.

And your "the Bible tells us" argument is awfully weak. The Bible tells us diddly-squat about all sorts of life-saving medical technologies that we have developed despite the efforts of some to keep in the age of leeching and other forms of magical thinking.

 

[marke]

It would be nice if you have some actual evidence or serious argument to support this claim: how do you know the restrictions have killed (and will kill) more people than covid has killed (and will kill) in the absence of restrictions?

What causes poverty, hardship, suffering, discouragement, and the like? Economic depression, for one, is a guaranteed result of coronavirus shutdowns.

 

[expos4ever]

How about one, just one example, of any of us on the "left" in this or any other thread, doing this (shifting the burden of proof).

Good luck with your search.

Hey fellers, how is this search coming?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It would be nice if you have some actual evidence or serious argument to support this claim: how do you know the restrictions have killed (and will kill) more people than covid has killed (and will kill) in the absence of restrictions?

Here's a list.

 

[marke]

Here's a list.

9 million deaths a year worldwide from economic woes is nothing to leftist democrats in America who are bent on destroying the American economy to try to stop a few more thousand old and sick people from dying with the additional burden of covid.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And your "the Bible tells us" argument is awfully weak.

Because you say so?

The Bible tells us diddly-squat about all sorts of life-saving medical technologies that we have developed

Completely irrelevant. You're moving the goalposts. The subject was quarantining the sick while allowing everyone else to go about their business, not medical technologies that save people's lives.

God introduced the idea of quarantining the sick 3500 years ago, and the method has been shown to be perfectly acceptable to use for the past 3500 years.

Why go against 3500 years of medical history and lock down the world, collapse economies, deface and terrorize people, all over a silly little virus that has an extremely high survival rate?

despite the efforts of some to keep in the age of leeching and other forms of magical thinking.

I think you'll find that, if you were to actually look, most medical progress has been made by Bible believing Christians who fear the One who made them.

For example: The MRI Scanner.

 

[way 2 go]

IF ivermectin works on this scale it will show how much we've been lied to

348,000 down to 195,000 in 13 days ivermectin