by Patrick ➕follow (59) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 52 of 52 Search these comments
I still do not know anyone who died from the virus, or even anyone who got seriously ill.
The deaths from the flu went to zero in 2020, while a respiratory illness with similar characteristics caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The CDC statistics have zero credibility.
Check out the graph below.
They count WITH separately from FROM. It's confusing and I can't find any clarification from the CDC.
The way I look at it, there's probably 3 categories here:
1) "died with covid / multiple causes / death spiral"
2) "died directly from covid"
3) "BOTH 1&2"
They only show us 2 categories in the dataset, which are #2 & #3.
#2 is called "FROM" and #3 is called "WITH".
Are you implying the pandemic was manipulated?
However, once infected and hospitalized in intensive care, case-fatality ratios were high for all adults
Onvacation says
Are you implying the pandemic was manipulated?
I can't explain the rationale behind the insanity that gripped this country, but our institutions clearly are compromised.
So if younger, get out into the environment. Enjoy life. Don't shelter in place, it may kill you when you are older. Don't be obese, smoke, or neglect your health. And stay the fuck out of the hospital.
My analyses of the data indicates very few comorbidities contributed to the death toll, which is the opposite of what we saw and common sense would indicate. You can see in this chart that 90% of the WITH people died FROM covid.
Have you done any research into what specifically those columns mean? I think you might be making faulty assumptions about what those 2 categories mean.
How do you know which category includes comorbidities, and which comorbidities, and under which scenarios, each column covers? They may BOTH cover comorbidities for all we know, but have some different rules.
However, once infected and hospitalized in intensive care, case-fatality ratios were high for all adults, especially in those over 60 years.
Now you will be audited.
In a way, the science mags are running into the same problem media had back during covid, when every new, more terrifying variant, arriving like clockwork every eight-point-three minutes, stretched the journalistic thesaurus to the breaking point. Alarming, dire, dangerous, dreadful, fearsome, formidable, horrifying, and so on until they reached the end of the alphabet: worrisome.
Then they went back to the beginning and started over, patiently and methodically working their way back through the letters, but Newsweek prematurely jumped the queue and ejected the “Doomsday variant.” It was all downhill from there, and reporters limply accepted they’d shot their wad and became a spent force.
This phenomenon is only ‘new’ in the sense that, as we’ve become increasingly mentally vaccinated to media alarmism through a long-term desensitization process, they’ve steadily increased the frightfulness-volume setting to a deafening ’11.’
I fondly recall how, back in the halcyon 90’s, enjoying the post-Soviet peace dividend, media would run much simpler doomsday stories like “Formica: The Silent Killer.” Or my personal, all-time favorite, even beyond covid (to which I’ve now devoted a substantial chunk of my career), the Venn-diagram convergence of about six attention-grabbing media gambits: “Is Your Bra Killing You?”
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 52 of 52 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,265,751 comments by 15,134 users - WookieMan online now