one year later with so much information out yet you are still regurgitating the talking points from the first week lol

washing your hands and wearing a mask does absolutely nothing and has been proving many times over yet why do intelligent people such as yourself still use that line?

asymptomatic people were proven basically to not even spread the virus and most people that caught the virus were from people who were already sick yet we still have the same talking points

then there was the imaginary long term damage from people who are asymptomatic lol imagine thinking someone shows zero symptoms yet has permanent lung damage..logic not even once

the only thing that works is social distancing yet humans are social creatures so the damage done from social distancing is much worse than anything the virus could have done

the only take away from this pandemic is human arrogance and thinking that you could somehow brute force your way to beating a virus at the cost of everything else

so many mistakes have been shown yet people still stick the same talking points

it's ****ing mind boggling

Pretty much the first thing that is done as mankind moves from rugged individualism to an organized societies is form some type of compact between the men on joint self defense against others (an army by any name).

Think frontiers in Cali or Mexico during the evolution of the Wild west to more organized communities/cities.

If you do not first organize around 'protecting lives' then others (Mexican army, competing community Barons) will see that you are accumulating wealth (infrastructure, arable lands, livestock) and may simply come in and claim it.

So, no, I won't agree with you that 'protecting lives' is not high up. In fact I would say it may in fact be the very top and first principle when societies organize.

In the sane world, threat to your life is the number one threat to your liberty.

There is a limit to how long humans should be living. After a certain age, most of us will just be taking up room / opportunities / resources from the newer generation.

But humans have also accepted that we will pay a big price to keep the olds alive.

How to reduce the politically-driven noise itt

One man's threat is another man's nothingburger

That said, I think it partially explains why everyone seems to be talking past each other

Right. So before discussing details everyone should first answer this question:

Would you do something moderately distressing every day for a year if it eliminated a one in 5000 chance of you dying that year AND eliminated a 1 in 20 chance of someone else dying? Perhaps someone could make a poll.

(For those who answer no, what if it was mildly, 500, and 5?)

Define moderately distressing? Losing your job? Losing all your savings? Leaving a generation of children behind? Crashing the world economy (while all the bureaucrats and talking heads still get paid handsomely)? There are many breaking points.

Or are you talking wear a mask and socially distance?

In any event everything has to open up yesterday as the threat of covid is far less than the alternatives.

Individual impact from covid (the chance of you personally killing someone living your life normally) are less than 1 in 1000 per year, and less than 1 in 10,000 per year if you simply a) live your life normally b) isolate when obviously sick c) avoid old people or old people are isolated instead. That's because:

1. Worst case death scenario is 1 in 100 anyway
2. Isolating only when sick wipes out >80% of infections. R is only 2 or so and most of that 2 occurs when actually noticeably sick
3. Old old are >90% of deaths
4. Heaps of people got it anyway (perhaps 30% of the US) even with all these mask bros and hand washers and society shut down.

So your question becomes:
Pretty different question. Now add in large societal side effects and economic losses, the extension of global extreme poverty by hundreds of millions of people x many years, stunted child social and intellectual development, and trillions of life-hours lived very suboptimally (separate from the distress question).

Now add in the fact that there's no guarantee that all these long lockdowns will result in a better covid outcome when all the accounting is done (see: Europe second wave)

It's a no brainer really.

I dunno I mean when you figure the odds on an individual level I think most would agree, but on an aggregate level you're talking about millions more dead globally. They estimated over 2million dead just in the US when Trump announced the first lockdowns. So that's 1.5 million more dead just in the US.

Not to mention, "avoid old people" is one of those things that is fine to say but hard to do in real life. If it was so easy, a lot less old people would have gotten it anyway. We've all known how dangerous it is to the elderly and many are already trying to avoid contact with old people. Yet a lot still got it. It would have been even worse with no restrictions.

The paradox of restrictions is that when they work, it looks like they weren't needed.

At this stage I think people just don't want to admit that they were wrong and made a huge mistake so they will argue against it until the end of time

the problem is that most of the models predicting the growth of the virus were incorrect on a massive lvl

not to mention most people wrote the models in a way where it grew exponentially until 100% infection rather than tapering off from 40%

I never understood that since it has been admitted that 100% infection levels was always impossible

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Keep dunking on these fools, this **** is hilarious lolololol

Evergreen post, apparently

yeah i don't get how profile stalkers ever think they aren't the one who comes off poorly

Yup, there it is as this 'let it rip' argument takes it final and true and honest form.

It is not about simply 'let it rip, olds be damned', and is instead about 'the olds should not be alive anyway. They take up room, opportunity and are a drag on resources the younger could have.'

You see it as pure economics. If the olds are killed off younger people will do better.


Nice to strip away the lies and games from prior.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Live footage of Rika's kids? Future epidemiologists of America?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/winds...sion-1.5937278

So you can lose your kids now if you are an anti-masker lol

the joke that keeps on giving

Lolcanada. I'm in toronto, longest lockdown in north america, 2k quarantine hotel for 3 nights upon arrival by air. Just scams upon scams up here

A new excess death study was published, results are quite different from what is being reported.

60% underreporting on average

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....27.21250604v1

This chart is a summary with the countries showing the most excess mortality. The chart looks horrible but the % in right corner shows excess mortality in %, ranking goes from left to right per line.



I would quote all the TS posts shitting on Belgium and ask him to comment on this new study, but then he'd just say I am triggered again.

Peru really got destroyed, excess death x2. Also noteworthy to see Russia and USA so high (USA has more excess death than Belgium, Portugal, Brazil, Italy, Chile, Iran,...).

just spitballing here, but the surge in armenia and azerbaijan could also be related to that war they fought

Did you read the article? The father is a wackjob who thinks covid is a hoax

Court said he's free to express opinion, but impact on safety of child is what's in dispute here. Also, he didn't lose his kids

They basically altered his visitation rights with the child's health/safety in mind and gave the power to decide on vaccination to the mother

Lol at thinking lvr actually reads the article he posts.

He gets his right wing talking points and regurgitates them. No point in reading articles when you have no independent thoughts.

Brazil PEAKING:

Makes you wonder if the P.1 variant could be something to worry about.