Tweet
Oh......Chucky, Chucky, Chucky....although not a all surprising, your insistence on people addressing your alter-ego's mask "data" is hilarious. Especially when I've challenged you and him to answer or address other questions multiple times yet, funny, neither of you have responded yet. I'll make you a freaking deal, I'll address his "data" right now and make him (and you) look stupid (again...) but, then you have to answer the question I posed to both of you 3 days ago, along with address both of your attempts to use a Q'Anon conspiracy freak's lack of brain power in misinterpreting the CDC's info on Covid and co-morbidities to infer there's only been 6,000 actual Covid deaths out of 190,000.... Newsflash, all of the 184,000 that had co-morbidities but were also listed as Covid deaths, without contracting Covid the VAST, VAST, MAJORITY WOULD STILL BE ALIVE YOU BRAIN-DEAD TURDS....Anyways, here's the question I challenge both of you morons to answer;
You do realize that literally 98% plus of all of the scientific and medical experts with legitimately respected knowledge in relation to this virus are saying this thing is a very big deal. They're all also saying that we need to be testing in far greater daily numbers than we currently are, that there should be a national mask mandate, that another 6 week lockdown is our best bet at actually getting the virus under control, that we shouldn't be opening schools up full bore, among a number of other things.
So please explain to me why it is YOU think they are taking these more cautious positions? Do you REALLY THINK that 98% plus of the world's legitimate experts in regards to this virus are just part of the DEEP STATE and that they're willing to completely screw up the world's economies just to make sure Trump doesn't get re-elected?!? If not, please explain why all of these extremely learned people -- all of them with FAR, FAR more knowledge than you -- are taking the positions that they are?
Oh and Chuck, one other thing. Back on page 126 you tried making a point about Sturgis and the fact that there has "only" been one death attributed to having attended the rally. And, at the end you of course add "proof?" in regards to whether he actually contracted it from attending Sturgis. Couple things...One, if a reputable and respected government agency (Minnesota Department of Health) releases info that the person who died contracted it from Sturgis, the burden to "prove" they're wrong is on you. Not on us to prove they're right. We still have faith in our governmental institutions. Next, my guess is they figured out he caught it at Sturgis by doing this thing called contact tracing. Also, it's only been two weeks since Sturgis. And, since deaths usually lag infections by 4-6 weeks, we're no where close to a point where anyone with any knowledge of how Covid works can make any kind of definitive statement about how many deaths might be connected to Sturgis when all is said and done.
The answer to 1820's and your stupidity about the supposed lack of success of various mask mandates is pretty damn simple. For any mask mandate to truly be effective, at least 80-90 percent of all people need to actually wear it when they're supposed to. Unfortunately, 40 plus percent of our country have as little brains and faith in science as you two morons. So, whether it's California or Minnesota, there simply aren't enough people wearing them consistently. Although, case counts in California are now starting to fall. Which also likely indicates that it's taking a few more weeks than we though for consistent mask wearing to have an effect. As for Minnesota, I live here and, I can promise you that in almost all of the more rural areas, less than half of the population is wearing them. So, as usual, the answers to your supposed "gotcha" questions are pretty simple for those of us who can read and use basic logic.
One last thing. You two keep emphasizing the "lack" of deaths and hospitalizations, especially in relation to younger individuals, as a sign this isn't any big deal. For the thousandth time, it's not just about deaths or hospitalizations. A number of other post-infection maladies, many that can cause long-term/permanent disabilities -- in the case of myocarditis even death -- are occurring in both mildly symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. If as many as 20-40% of all those infected are coming down with one or more of these maladies -- that's between 1.2 million and 2.5 million people up to this point -- what's your response to that side of the virus. Especially considering all of the millions and millions of dollars of preventable, long-term health care costs that we'll have to deal with? Don't you think that's a pretty significant deal? Anyway, not sure why I spent all this time writing this since neither you or 1820 will probably respond.
You do realize that literally 98% plus of all of the scientific and medical experts with legitimately respected knowledge in relation to this virus are saying this thing is a very big deal. They're all also saying that we need to be testing in far greater daily numbers than we currently are, that there should be a national mask mandate, that another 6 week lockdown is our best bet at actually getting the virus under control, that we shouldn't be opening schools up full bore, among a number of other things.
So please explain to me why it is YOU think they are taking these more cautious positions? Do you REALLY THINK that 98% plus of the world's legitimate experts in regards to this virus are just part of the DEEP STATE and that they're willing to completely screw up the world's economies just to make sure Trump doesn't get re-elected?!? If not, please explain why all of these extremely learned people -- all of them with FAR, FAR more knowledge than you -- are taking the positions that they are?
Oh and Chuck, one other thing. Back on page 126 you tried making a point about Sturgis and the fact that there has "only" been one death attributed to having attended the rally. And, at the end you of course add "proof?" in regards to whether he actually contracted it from attending Sturgis. Couple things...One, if a reputable and respected government agency (Minnesota Department of Health) releases info that the person who died contracted it from Sturgis, the burden to "prove" they're wrong is on you. Not on us to prove they're right. We still have faith in our governmental institutions. Next, my guess is they figured out he caught it at Sturgis by doing this thing called contact tracing. Also, it's only been two weeks since Sturgis. And, since deaths usually lag infections by 4-6 weeks, we're no where close to a point where anyone with any knowledge of how Covid works can make any kind of definitive statement about how many deaths might be connected to Sturgis when all is said and done.
The answer to 1820's and your stupidity about the supposed lack of success of various mask mandates is pretty damn simple. For any mask mandate to truly be effective, at least 80-90 percent of all people need to actually wear it when they're supposed to. Unfortunately, 40 plus percent of our country have as little brains and faith in science as you two morons. So, whether it's California or Minnesota, there simply aren't enough people wearing them consistently. Although, case counts in California are now starting to fall. Which also likely indicates that it's taking a few more weeks than we though for consistent mask wearing to have an effect. As for Minnesota, I live here and, I can promise you that in almost all of the more rural areas, less than half of the population is wearing them. So, as usual, the answers to your supposed "gotcha" questions are pretty simple for those of us who can read and use basic logic.
One last thing. You two keep emphasizing the "lack" of deaths and hospitalizations, especially in relation to younger individuals, as a sign this isn't any big deal. For the thousandth time, it's not just about deaths or hospitalizations. A number of other post-infection maladies, many that can cause long-term/permanent disabilities -- in the case of myocarditis even death -- are occurring in both mildly symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. If as many as 20-40% of all those infected are coming down with one or more of these maladies -- that's between 1.2 million and 2.5 million people up to this point -- what's your response to that side of the virus. Especially considering all of the millions and millions of dollars of preventable, long-term health care costs that we'll have to deal with? Don't you think that's a pretty significant deal? Anyway, not sure why I spent all this time writing this since neither you or 1820 will probably respond.
Comment