Because Human Nature Always Exists And People Lie. It's Just What We Do.

No matter what the actual number is, the only reason it's mentioned is because the president has an R next to his name.

Didn't the CDC say last week that as much as 80% of tests are false positives, due to over testing of the sample?

Right. Because hospitals, cities, countries, and entire state medical staffs are fully untrustworthy and willing to lie for political gain or for money. Human nature? It must be depressing to think people are that bad. And it isn't just "blue States". How many coroners, medical examiners, or others across the US must be in on it? All of them lying. All of them misreporting.

The whole world is in on it. England is going back into lockdown. Numbers are going back up all over Europe. Such a widespread conspiracy is almost unbelievably isn't it? More than almost.

Flu deaths are down because we have been implementing countermeasures most of the year for covid which is more contagious than the flu.

Sometimes things are what they look like.

Greetings. I hope you don't mind but I followed you.

That's been said back in March when they first started testing people. If I remember correctly, it was Spain and Italy that first raised this issue back then.

But the results are more deceptive than that. It comes down to the number of cycles the test sample undergoes. The US routinely uses 42-45 cycles. There are reports of places using in excess of 60+.

The more cycles test performs, the more chance it will find minute reminisce of past illness - as in, dead cells of cold/flu from 12-18 month ago. This is why they crape the back of your throat.

For that reason, Fauci says any positive test above 35 cycles is a false positive. This is what the whole pandemic is based on - fake test results. Fauci has know since at least July that most Covid “cases” are false.

Watch Fauci admit it.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1322285695524745216/pu/vid/888x496/p3YnRYFslsP560VU.mp4

Uhh.... hate to play devil's advocate, but where'd they get those numbers?

From the CDC like is says. Just like the CDC said lock downs do not work and are hurting people. Also said most masks do not work.

The CDC lied about masks to prevent snowflakes from panicking. People die from the flu also. No one ever tried to destroy the country over it.

Hmmm... still weird more people died of other things than the reported Wuhan Flu deaths.

It is not a deadly virus. It just pushes people over the edge if you have had other medical problems. That is why young people have a 99.998% survival rate and those above 50 have a 99.4% survival rate because as you age, you have more medical problems.

"It's not a deadly virus. It just pushes people over the edge."
I would be shaking hands with a satellite if I could facepalm any harder.
Did you even read what you're saying before you foist your mind droppings on others?

May I ask what caused those issues?

The issues were from the old already being sick before the virus pushes you over the edge and you can not fight off the virus. It is so much better now because they have drugs available to fight it and they know where the corona virus attacks which is the upper respiratory tract

Comorbidities such as these are the mixing of two o more problem causing deaths when one alone would not be fatal.

I think what Slippery was getting at is covid can actually cause many of the comorbidities that some people try to claim negate covid death numbers.

Yeah, and the actual number is way lower they count death in a weird way.

Ex: You go to the hospital for heart surgery, you happened to catch covid while in the hospital, they do the heart surgery and fail, you die and though you didn't die FROM covid, they add that death to the total.

That's why the number is so high and people are scared even though they shouldn't be.

Surgery with covid- Daily totals would reflect that as a covid death because we are currently favoring fast vs accurate data there. But the actual final determination lies with a medical examiner or the like. I'm sure there are mistakes, but enough to be significant? I doubt it. Given how few people percentage wise have caught it, the overlap between being covid positive and dying of other causes should be low.

Nono, they are told to put that death to the total, though it shouldn't count it does

Sorry, but no. CDC guidance on filling out death certificates is clear. And even if it weren't, professional integrity should count for something. I live in MS and the doctor over covid response actually addressed this in an interview. To paraphrase "if we put covid as a cause of death, it was. We have people going over all positive cases where the patient died and we are even a bit conservative. Some of these cases probably could be considered covid, but if we aren't sure, it isn't covid".

Then tell me this, why are the numbers so high if the masks work?

And dont say its because of people that don't wear them, the small population that doesn't wont affect the numbers much

Because masks aren't perfect and were never said to be? Also, people don't wear them consistently or correctly, I would guess. The under the nose people... God save us.

A recent analysis I read (because someone said it showed mask wearers were more likely to catch it: it didn't show that one way or the other) showed many positive cases were tied to people eating at indoor restaurants. You take your mask off for that.

I actually think people getting a false sense of security because of the mask is a thing.

you'd need control groups to get accurate data as to how effective masks are. Even then, it can be hard to determine their effectiveness.

Why would having a mask under your nose matter? Air flow will reach your nose either way. The main reason they're supposed to be important is stopping particles from your mouth escaping.

In the end, because the mask wearing guidance that is out there says so. That's how doctors have worn them. Any metric about their effectiveness is going to be based on wearing them that way. But, in my opinion - coughing will be primarily the mouth, true. But doing a quick test myself I exhale from both while coughing. Plus sneezing. Also, when you exhale through your nose there is force there and any particles would be expelled further. Covering your nose slows the air flow and the distance particles can/could travel.

So by making these people wear masks and deciding their choices on what they can do, you support Communism/Socialism? Because last time i checked that's basically how it works

There are laws on the books that allow public health enforcement of this sort of thing. Many of them originate from the time of the Spanish flu, and could use an update.

Standards of dress are a thing. Public decency is a thing communities decide on and enforce. I fail to see how wearing a mask during a pandemic is any different.

"I fail to see how wearing a mask during a pandemic is any different."

Its just like forcing women in foreign countries to cover as much of their skin as possible.

I think maybe you don't see that we already have some things like that. Girls sent home from school for their shorts not being at a prescribed length. Take your hat off in certain situations.

Societies have standards, and standards that differ from ours seem weird.

Fun observation, having gone to the middle east for work a couple of times, the full body coverings became a thing in the region because its so hot and probably because of sand storms. I know that doesn't make sense if you haven't been there or somewhere equally hot, but when the temp hits the 110 to 120 degrees mark and the wind starts to blow, its like a convection oven. That's right - a breeze makes you feel hotter. Logically, I get it, but it took a minute to mentally adapt. The air inside your clothes, even heated by your body is more comfortable than the air outside. Some of those outfits that looked weird at first glance start to look comfortable really fast. Sucking down sand in a minor sand storm also made me wish I at least had a scarf to cover my mouth.

I see these things all the time, you have a point.

Yes, society has standards, it's just like going outside naked, it's not allowed, these are rules for reasons, however, when they start trying to take away our freedoms that's when they need to back off.

And to the last part, I was just referring to the fact that some communities require it.

Pretty much

(exaggerated ofc)

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I really, really, don't see how masks lead to socialism.

We put Japanese in concentration camps in WWII. We enforced segregation. These were bad things, but were they socialism? How are masks socialism/communism?

I get it as something to be concerned with in general as an erosion of rights, but what is the cost of wearing a mask? The closest I've heard to a good answer is "teaching people to comply". Really? Like standing for the pledge? Clearing the way for ambulances or fire trucks? There are lots of things we have been conditioned to do that aren't necessarily bad.

I'm not saying we shouldn't put a pin in it and revisit if there is a push to make it a permanent thing, but until then, I really really don't see it.

No i didnt say they lead to it, i said it was similar to it

"The closest I've heard to a good answer is "teaching people to comply"." pretty good answer, pretty similar if i do say so myself

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

I would say there is a parallel between what you are saying and compelling healthy people to get vaccines. In that regard, the Supreme Court found that mandatory vaccines did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

"You err when you cite Jacobson v. Mass" - you could do your thing and just tear that down, but let's change it up.

I acknowledged it wasn't about lockdowns specifically. Do you have a case or precedent that is more relevant to reference that supports your belief?

"withstand a Supreme Court challenge" - who can say? But current statutes and judgments are on the side of the public health laws. Especially post 9/11 and some of the policy decisions made with an eye on possible attack with biological weapons.

Public Health Report here is interesting:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569983/

Honestly, with existing supreme court precedence, its going to take a supreme court decision to invalidate the laws on the books.

What does it explain? I would hate to make any unfounded assumptions from that statement.