Imgflip Logo Icon

Survival Rate of Over 99%...

Survival Rate of Over 99%... | image tagged in politics,political meme,covid-19,democrats,election 2020,consequences | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
2,559 views 64 upvotes Made by vBackman 5 years ago in politics
76 Comments
9 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Charlie Conspiracy (Always Sunny in Philidelphia) | image tagged in charlie conspiracy always sunny in philidelphia | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Remember to leave the basement and get fresh air regularly, also stay hydrated.
7 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Good advice for Biden and so-called peaceful protesters!
5 ups, 5y,
2 replies
So peaceful protesters both deserve what they get for being a public nuisance but also never leave the basement? Okay Simone Biles.
8 ups, 5y,
3 replies
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
JR, here is your public nuisance in action....
[deleted]
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
If Biden wins watch how long the Coronavirus and George Floyd disappear from the news. I guarantee you it will be the next day.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
The next day would most likely be wall to wall commentary on the election results... But... I will be amazed if George Floyd is still in the news 4 months from now (before or after election results).
As far as Coronavirus.. eh.. maybe so maybe no.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
It won’t be. This is all a scam to take down President Trump.
0 ups, 5y
Which part?
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Oh..so..they aren't in fact, like you implied, stuck in a basement? Well that's good news!!
4 ups, 5y,
1 reply
JR, you are the one who mentioned the basement.
2 ups, 5y
Yes, you said my advice for people in basements would also be good for Biden supporters and protestors. Oh wait, you weren't conflating?.. You were just thinking of their health. Aw, well that's nice.
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Peaceful: Not involving war or violence.

Do you guys have a special Conservadictionary where it says something else?
6 ups, 5y,
2 replies
Violence includes destroying businesses, breaking windows and stealing stuff, harming/killing police officers (or anyone else)...what part of that don't you understand?

It is like the inmates have sprung the asylum and met up in Portland. UNBELIEVABLE compilation of pictures! Look at these pictures, JR, and tell me how this is not violence and secondly, please tell me why you would support it....
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3064265170277874&set=pcb.3064270876943970&type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARCzbAeNlgiqDs6qjVroEREmTGnctKQefNFbEq_jEqcCU_k78vB3Rz5SOy4hF-O4sXdu5z4tCZg5RUoT
[deleted]
4 ups, 5y
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Who is claiming that breaking windows etc is peaceful protest?

Unbunch your panties and while you're at it stop conflating peaceful protests with riots.
5 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Portland...
Saint Louis
Atlanta

take your pick really...

Every Protest is described as"Peaceful" even when the damage is Visible... FFS the Saint Louis Couple was just charged with 'Threatening Peaceful Protesters" despite the clear Property Damage that allowed the 'Protest' to reach their Yard in the first place..
0 ups, 5y
#gatelivesmatter
5 ups, 5y
You leftists need to condemn the riots, looting and blocking cars. Look up the word "peaceful" as I don't think you guys understand the meaning of it.
5 ups, 5y,
4 replies
Already scientifically proven masks have no significant effect to slow or prevent the spread of any viruses. The reference is a journal published by the CDC.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/20/face-masks-dont-work-study-published-by-your-very-own-cdc/

For those who don't like reading:

Why Face Masks Don't Work, According to Science:
https://youtu.be/wegZJI6NvpU
3 ups, 5y
I called you a conspiracy theorist because you said:

"There is zero scientific proof that anyone has died from a so-called disease called covid-19 which has no specific symptoms."

Which is wrong as the CDC compiles a list of probable and confirmed cases of people who have died. There are symptoms in that some people report shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, persistent cough, migraines or headaches, fatigue and a few others found here on the CDC website.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html

You also claimed that:

"The flu does not kill that manu (12,000-72,000) people. The CDC lumps together pneumonia deaths with the few flu deaths to make it look scarier so people buy worthless flu shots. And flu is not the only cause of pneumonia."

While true, pneumonia is counted among those deaths, the CDC doesn't "lump" them together together to "make it look scarier so people buy wothrless flu shots" The flu frequently causes pneumonia so many of the deaths are contributed to both illnesses rather than listing them separately.
Not because they're out to get you, or sell you something. I've never had a flu shot but only because I've not really had a cold or flu for almost a decade or two. Possibly due to other people taking flu shots. And no doctor, of which I see several almost every few months, has ever tried to push for flu vaccination despite my age.

And I find it odd that someone who refuses to directly link CDC information would be so paranoid as to misinterpret that information. Or perhaps, you are intentionally making false claims or have been misled by a secondary source. Which is very likely since the sources you have linked are, as I've stated before, incredibly politically biased.
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
“I'm going by the latest information coming out around the world. You just parrot MSM talking points which any sucker can easily find. Please tell me how fantastic the vaccines are going to be....no side effects and it will make the nasty fake covid disease go bye-bye. Just don't ask what's in it, how it was "safety tested", or if does what it claims.”

No, you’re not. You’re pedaling conspiracy theories and are dismissive of the CDC and science in general except when it conforms to your confirmation bias.

You’re gambling by reflecting on one study and ignoring the rest. And when I tell you facts, like that Covid’s death count exceeds seasonal flu, and indeed many outbreaks, you just deny them without presenting any source that refutes it.

By challenging your bullshit, that is not me parroting MSM. That is challenging you parroting randos on the Internet.

Nor have I made the claim that vaccines aren’t going to have side effects. Are you going to go into an ant-vaxxer tirade now? That won’t make you look more reliable as a source, just so you know.

Basically, you’re mostly just making shit up.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
You pathetic sheep. All the main players and official organizations are saying this. Fauci said masks are useless, Birx said the numbers are inflated, CDC says masks are ineffective, transmission of virus on surfaces unlikely, WHO said asymptiomatic transmission nearly impossible.

Pathetic dodge weakly invoking the dreaded "conspiracy theories". I'm following official sources and renowned epidemiologists. I quoted CDC any you say I'm not listening to them. Worst of the worst logical fallacies.
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Fauci originally didn't recommend use of masks primary so that PPE would not be hoarded by civilians. Now that there has been more time to create more masks, he is now recommending them. Scientists use to think the Earth the center of the universe. You don't point to them and say because they were wrong before maybe they're wrong now, do you? Oh, well. Maybe you do. But still, that's really not how science works.

Just because the numbers are inflated doesn't mean there is no risk. We have to act on the data we have, not whatever we think the data REALLY is. I'm not denying the data could be wrong, but the people who are throwing the data away are not being rational.

While one study (against several others) the main consensus say otherwise. On the CDC website they also have this, and have repeatedly said this so often that even the President is finally repeating their recommendations to wear a mask.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Surface to surface transmission, or Fomite Transmission, is still possible especially in direct contact with surfaces or surfaces that are disturbed by several potential infected...

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions

Also the WHO did not say it was "nearly impossible". They said it was "very rare" and they were primarily referring to pre-symptomatic people. Some studies still show as much as 40 to 60 percent of transmission is from people without symptoms.

You quoted the CDC, I acknowledge that. I asked for you to link to your source to validate your claim as I am finding the opposite of what you are claiming from these sources. So either you're quoting outdated data or you're quoting misinterpreted data from a secondary source; which you confirmed you did by linking a blog and a YouTube video.

I even VALIDATED that you found one study that concluded that masks are ineffective and I congratulated for actually doing it, even if you linked it through a secondary source. A politically biased blog. And happily posted the actual study FOR YOU.

As for my calling you a conspiracy theorist that will need a whole new comment chain to break down all the things you've said which are incredibly suspect.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Yawn. Fauci is on video saying masks might stop a droplet or two, that's it. Had nothing to do with hoarding.

OMG, it wasn't nearly impossible but "very rare"? Oh dear my house of cards is collapsing! Very rare means nearly never. The research shows that asymptomatic transmission is negligible. Not that BS figure you mention. 40-60% transmission caused by people without symptoms. Don't be ridiculous. So who is right? The WHO who you pointed said it's very rare? Or the BS figure you didn't provide any link to? Is 40-60% "very rare"? Astounding.

Here, again, is the CDC info you are pretending not to see and disengenuously claiming is not correct based on absolutely nothing. From the CDC, NOT a blog:

"Here are quotes from pages 970-972 of the review: “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks…”

“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids… There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”

“We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility…”

Do you even know what "conspiracy theory" means?
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Yes, that’s from a study I linked from your blog and I said that the information is one study despite dozens of others claiming otherwise. It references previous studies, yes but those studies were conducted in other environments and adapted protocols.

Do you really need me to answer you what a conspiracy theory is? I don’t think you do.

In short, it’s a theory that consists of a lack of evidence, or a significant lack of evidence as evidence itself that a conspiracy has happened.

You’re purposely ignoring that the CDC has changed it’s position on the effectiveness of masks.
0 ups, 5y,
2 replies
Wrong, sucker. WRONG.
You don't even realize you are only giving a general definition of the word "theory", let alone parroting the mistaken notion that the term refers to the people who are raising the issues and discussing them.

A "conspiracy theory" is a theory about a conspiracy. Really tough stuff right? It is a theory that some people got together to do something. Like any theory, some are unproven, some are proven, and some have been disproven. You've proven yourself to be a dolt for thinking it automatically refers to things which don't have any evidence for them, or to the people who put forward the theory. In you book then every scientist is a conspiracy theorist. But that me being disingenuous. In fact it's just another box on your checklist of logical fallacies, in this case "poisoning the well".

Reminds me of a talk by Prof. Michael Parenti. Some people asked him "do you think there there are people sitting in rooms planning these things?" He said, "Yes, of course, they have plenty of rooms. Do you think they have their meetings on merry-go-rounds?"

Your ridiculous understanding exposes you are incapable of logical and scientific thinking, as others can use those two words to easily get you to dismiss valid information as being baseless, and you yourself use it as a tool to dismiss inconvenient information.

You don't even understand the basic meanings of words and how they can be used against you. No wonder you always get things so consistently and utterly wrong.
2 ups, 5y
Actually, a real theory has evidence. It would be more accurate to call them conspiracy hypothesizes.

But again, they usually take a lack of evidence as evidence of a conspiracy.

Hence why they are usually balked at.

And now you are engaging in that classic of logical fallacies. The ad hominem.

If you cannot argue you point, which you can’t, nor can you provide more evidence to support your argument, you’ve chosen to continue to engage with me in an intellectually disingenuous argument.

If I am wrong, then prove I am wrong. So far, you’ve refused to link your sources, or provide basic proof that the CDC doesn’t recommend masks.

Being argumentative is crucial to critical thinking, but if you argue against the facts, without finding more facts to support your argument, then it is more a critical opinion. And opinions rely on emotional responses rather than a logical interpretation of evidence.

I do not see you doing that, but instead of accusing you of such things, I’ve asked you link to where you’re getting your information besides biased political blogs and YouTube.

And still you fail at this basic request.
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
A conspiracy theory is not a theory about a conspiracy.

conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators-Merriam Webster

conspiracy theory
Word forms: plural conspiracy theories
COUNTABLE NOUN
A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely.-Collins

conspiracy theory
noun [ C ]
UK /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪə.ri/ US /kənˈspɪr.ə.si ˌθɪr.i/

a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people-Cambridge

conspiracy theory[ kuhn-spir-uh-see theer-ee ]SHOW IPA
noun
a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot:
One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse.
a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group:
A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters.
the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public:
The more I learn about the activities of intelligence agencies, the less far-fetched I find many geopolitical conspiracy theories.-Dictionary.com
1 up, 5y
Hahahaha what a fraud. I give a CDC published review of 10 studies that say cloth masks are ineffective against viruses, claims I never gave any proof.

Says conspiracy theory is not a theory about a conspiracy, proceeds to quote a definition that says exactly that.

You can stop digging in the hole you're in.
1 up, 5y
#SecurityTheater
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Hurray! You found someone who found one study that confirms your bias! Well done. No, seriously. I mean it. Good for you to actually find the one study that contradicts all the other studies.

Here is the link to the actual study instead of the biased garbage blog....

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994-f2
0 ups, 5y,
2 replies
Oh because another website relays information directly from the CDC website it is somehow "biased"? So is the text of the CDC report biased as well?

"Here are quotes from pages 970-972 of the review: “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks…”

“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids… There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission.”

“We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility…”
2 ups, 5y
More studies that contradict your one.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/2/pdfs/08-1167.pdf
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
No, I called the blog biased because of it’s tone and rhetoric. It seeks vindication in data that conforms to it’s bias and that is not how someone who is critically objective seeks information. It’s defensive of it’s stance that masks don’t work and relishes in delivering evidence that echoes just that. Not to educate but to ridicule.

I did not say the CDC was biased, I called the blog biased garbage. Because it is. The study is the only saving grace.

I already established the one study as valid. And it is a victory to those who are against masks. However, one study doesn’t mean there aren’t several more that contradict it. Which there are.

http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2.pdf

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020

And so on...
reply
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
We already know about the outdated droplet theory research. Yes masks prevent droplets from spreading. No one is debating that. The issue is that the viruses are now known to be emitted by talking and breathing, let alone coughing and sneezing. Masks are utterly useless to prevent the spread of those freely emitted sub-micron particles. Only a small fraction are suspended in droplets.
3 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Except every other study argues otherwise that masks are an effective tool in preventing the spread of coronavirus. You found one that counters it. Can you find more?
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Disingenuous moron. The "one study" is a review of ten different studies (trials, actual experiments). Anyone who can read and has a brain could see that. Seems you keep a checklist of all the logical fallacies handy and refer to it EVERY SINGLE TIME you comment.
2 ups, 5y
Very good! I'm glad you did some reading. Yes, it is a review of many previous studies. As far back as the 60s unless I'm mistaken. And those studies have either lead to developments in improving equipment or improving protocol when wearing PPE, not abandoning PPE all together.
[deleted]
5 ups, 5y
[deleted]
6 ups, 5y,
1 reply
6 ups, 5y,
3 replies
It has nothing to do with even numbered years. All of these other illnesses were treated much differently than Covid-19. Do you seriously think that it would have been treated so differently if the media and leftists did did not promote it as a pandemic (plus hate Trump so much)? The 99+% recovery rate is really not that threatening.
[deleted]
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
After the Democrats failed with their sham impeachment efforts in February, they were left stuck in a presidential election year with no real issue to run on other than hating Trump. The economy was stronger than it had been in decades, the racial tensions of the Obama years had largely disappeared, and President Trump was widely expected to be re-elected. Then come the Coronavirus and the George Floyd killing, all of which the Democrats and their media lapdogs have used (so far successfully) against President Trump. Those of us who are truly awake can see what is really going on here.
1 up, 5y
So far successfully.
1 up, 5y
Where are you getting the 99+% recovery rate thing from? It is in direct contrast with... everything I've read.
[deleted]
6 ups, 5y,
3 replies
5 ups, 5y,
2 replies
It's been downgraded in many countries.
[deleted]
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
1 up, 5y,
2 replies
Coronaviruses have been ever-present in every country in the world for decades.
[deleted]
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Yes several strains known to cause the common cold. There is no scientific evidence that there is a new strain. No sars-cov-2 virus has been isolated under an electron microscope, and sars-cov-2-specific antibodies have never been discovered. Thus no proof there is a disease called covid-19, or that there is anything going on more dangerous than the flu.
[deleted]
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
0 ups, 5y
Nice images, no proof. The article gives no links, NIAID only says a researcher gave a sample, someone photographed it, and someone colored it to make it look pretty. No mention of any proof of isolation of sars-cov-2 virus, no further information. Could be anything, and it could especially be just the same old thing. They don't pretend there is a single sars-cov-2 virus because they are always mutating, but have "concluded" there are two main strains. If they mutate now it means the old strains have been mutating for for decades, same as flu viruses. No proof this is anything "novel" or more dangerous or deadly, and even the "official" stats bear it out. Also ridiculous that anyone who believes that the existence of this sub-micron virus has been proven by this undocumented garbage would also believe that something needing an electron microscope to see it could possibly be stopped or slowed by fabric masks. Modern research shows as much. You can produce hundreds of outdated droplet-based mask research paper, but they are useless. The OP memer is absolutely on point.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Not this one.
0 ups, 5y
Yes this one. It's just old one given a new name. Same trick they pulled with polio and HIV/AIDS. We'll just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there's no such thing as Big Pharma.
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Even the corrupt CDC just said it's below pandemic threshold in China.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
That is rather encouraging. Too bad the US is no where near that threshold. But it's possible we may be under that threshold in 2 months. Maybe just before election. Fingers crossed.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Absolutely untrue. Number of phony "covid deaths" has been steadily falling in the USA for some time according to the "official" phony data. Number of cases increasing at same time is showing how weak it really is. The data shows there was never any pandemic worse than common flu.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
The death rate lowering has nothing to do with pandemic threshold. When they say it’s below pandemic threshold, it means it’s infection rate has slowed to the point that it is unlikely to spread to other countries. Meaning the virus is contained.

The flu kills between 12,000-72,000 people in the US a year. Covid has killed 130,000 people in the US. It IS much worse than the common flu.
1 up, 5y,
1 reply
Absolutely false. The flu does not kill that manu people. The CDC lumps together pneumonia deaths with the few flu deaths to make it look scarier so people buy worthless flu shots. And flu is not the only cause of pneumonia.

There is zero scientific proof that anyone has died from a so-called disease called covid-19 which has no specific symptoms. They haven't even found covid specific antibodies let alone the actual sars-cov-2 virus.

Majority of deaths have been in very elderly people dying from serious comorbidity, half of those in nursing homes. The tests are not designed for diagnostic purposes and are completely useless in determining "number of cases".
0 ups, 5y,
1 reply
Very convenient to discredit and dismiss all the reliable sources for which you do not agree.
1 up, 5y
I'm going by the latest information coming out around the world. You just parrot MSM talking points which any sucker can easily find. Please tell me how fantastic the vaccines are going to be....no side effects and it will make the nasty fake covid disease go bye-bye. Just don't ask what's in it, how it was "safety tested", or if does what it claims.
2 ups, 5y
Influenza virus and coronaviruses have been spread in every country for decades. It's called flu and cold season. Any epidemiologist can tell you those annual flu seasons could technically be called pandemics as well.
[deleted]
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
From the CDC website: "The overall burden of influenza for the 2012-2013 season was an estimated 34 million influenza illnesses, 16 million influenza-associated medical visits, 571,000 influenza-related hospitalizations, and 43,000 flu-associated deaths"

2012 was an election year, too. Some of the differences between that pandemic and the very much exploited Covid-19: While children were the most vulnerable to fall sick in 2012, schools weren't shut down for months. Religious services weren't banned. Small-owned businesses weren't forced to close their doors. Citizens weren't ostracized for wanting to return to work. Elderly people in NYC weren't forced to share their nursing homes with known-to-be-infected younger people. Nobody was being mask-shamed. Mayors and Governors weren't pretending like they were dictators. Congress wasn't asking the debt to be raised by trillions. The President wasn't blamed for the deaths caused by the influenza.

And the major difference: The Left wasn't feeling desperate about whether they were going to have Obama or Romney the RINO sitting in the WH come January. They were just two sides of the same coin.
[deleted]
2 ups, 5y,
1 reply
[deleted]
1 up, 5y
Yes, it is. The son of a family friend died from that flu.
Show More Comments
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 2
  • image.png
  • image.png