State your opinion on COVID-19

On 5/18/2020 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 18:50:09 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/18/2020 5:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 10:27:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 12:14:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote:

Ralph, the normal deaths in the population is 16.4 per 100,000 per week.
The present death rate is 16.7. It is a complicated measurement since so
many people are presently dying because of auto deaths, suicides, delayed
surgeries and a sudden increase in deaths from alcoholism.

Some units or additional context in your first posting would have been
nice.

The important thing is that I GAVE you the rates of deaths and during this so-called "Crisis" that additional deaths are only 1,500 or so and not 80,000+.

This illness is hardly worse that a bad cold and while they are screaming "KEEP THE SHUTDOWN" infections and deaths are dropping.

It is a false report that "infections are increasing" because all that means is that more testing is being accomplished and hence more positives are showing up.

Now remember what I said about this being pure bull**** from the CDC and then look at this chart from John's Hopkins school of medicine https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

The other countries on this map have no political points to make and so this misreporting of new cases or deaths due to the Wuhan Virus isn't necessary.

In 1861 - 1865 the U.S. fought the "Civil War, said to be the
deadliest war in U.S. History, when some 755,000 were killed. In
simple terms the death rate was 550 a week or 78.57 per day.

In 1955 - 1975 the U.S. Engaged in the Vietnam "war" and while some
58,209 died in total during the "war" 1968 proved to be the most
deadly with some 16,899 dying, or a rate of 46 per day. It is of
interest to note that these figures were great enough to panic the
U.S. and up to 20,000 fled the country to avoid serving in the
Military and "being sent to Vietnam to die".

The first death recorded in the U.S. due to the current Coronavirus
pandemic was on, in the U.S., seems to have been on 1 march, and as
of May 18, 2020, 21:57 GMT, some 79 days later, 91,730 had died, a
casualty rate of 1,161 a day.

It would appear that the current virus pandemic, based on death rates
as is done in time of war, is the most catastrophic event in the
history of the United States.


The losses in 'our recent unpleasantness' was from a much
smaller population, something just over 30 million
altogether in 1860.

The Hong Kong 1969 influenza however killed som e100
thousand of a US population just over 200 million (versus
about 330 million today.)

While I do not dispute your numbers I think that you misrepresent the
picture.

But perhaps I'm wrong. So tell us why so many were running to Canada
to avoid a death rate of 46/day during the worst year of the so called
war? It might also be noted that only about 30% of the troops
stationed in Vietnam were draftees.
Or why one reads in the news about numbers of deaths in Afghanistan or
Iraq or any of the other strange places that the U.S. seems to have
"invaded". After all in terms of the U.S. population they are, well,
not even peanuts.

Rationalize it anyway that makes you feel better, but the fact remains
that death rates, to date, due to the virus outnumber losses due to
combat by a factor of ~200% in the worst war that the U.S. ever fought
and a factor of 400% over any war in living memory.

I might add that you have, in the past, enumerated the deaths in U.S.
hospitals as tragedies. You didn't say "But what the Hell! They were
only 0.06% of the population". Or bicycle deaths. Good Lord! They
seem to be about 800 a year, but to be safe lets call it 900
annually. Or about 0.0002% by population, certainly such a low
percentage can be safely ignored.
--
cheers,

John B.


I don't know how many men actually absconded to Canada. My
memory of it was 'all hat, no cattle' but I don't know.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/18/2020 9:51 PM, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:42:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/18/2020 6:38 PM, James wrote:

I bought a gravel bike so that I have more variety of routes and places
to explore.Â* I often ride a mix of bitumen and gravel, and the MTB is
just a slug on bitumen.Â* Furthermore my gravel bike has 3 water bottles
in the main triangle, which is really handy around here in hot weather.
It's also good for towing my shopping trailer.

I certainly agree about mountain bikes being "slugs" on paved roads.

If you ride nobbies.

I have a friend who is not an avid cyclist, although he did some 1000
mile camping tours when much younger. He likes riding under a full moon,
and usually invites me to ride with him. I use one of my road bikes, he
uses his mountain bike. In fact, he uses it everywhere, except off road.
He has no interest in riding on dirt.

At one time, he mentioned that he still had his 1970s Trek touring bike,
but it needed lots of work. I said that bike would be much more
appropriate for his riding and offered to overhaul it for him. And I put
many hours into a complete overhaul. (I may have mentioned having to
disassemble the Campy touring rear derailleur to get it working.)

He came to get the completed bike, test rode it once around my block and
said he didn't like it. It didn't feel stable enough for him. AFAIK he's
never ridden it since.

Did you set it up for racing or touring?

I set it up as it was. Admittedly, he had narrow rims and tires - I
don't remember the size, but narrower than the 28s or 32s I usually
ride. I suggested going wider, but he's not interested in spending the
money. I think he's a man of small budget.


I've suggested he at least get slick road tires for his mountain bike,
but so far he's resisted even that. Ah well!

Based on experience, I won't tour with some one using slicks. They are
always first off the cab for lone cyclist accidents. Loss of traction and
they are flat on the deck. YMMV.

Really? My wife and I rode Avocet slicks as long as we could get them.
She still has them on one bike. No traction problems at all.

So I guess our M does V.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:21:25 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2020 9:51 PM, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:42:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/18/2020 6:38 PM, James wrote:

I bought a gravel bike so that I have more variety of routes and places
to explore.Â* I often ride a mix of bitumen and gravel, and the MTB is
just a slug on bitumen.Â* Furthermore my gravel bike has 3 water bottles
in the main triangle, which is really handy around here in hot weather.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 20:59:24 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/18/2020 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 18:50:09 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/18/2020 5:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 10:27:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 12:14:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote:

Ralph, the normal deaths in the population is 16.4 per 100,000 per week.
The present death rate is 16.7. It is a complicated measurement since so
many people are presently dying because of auto deaths, suicides, delayed
surgeries and a sudden increase in deaths from alcoholism.

Some units or additional context in your first posting would have been
nice.

The important thing is that I GAVE you the rates of deaths and during this so-called "Crisis" that additional deaths are only 1,500 or so and not 80,000+.

This illness is hardly worse that a bad cold and while they are screaming "KEEP THE SHUTDOWN" infections and deaths are dropping.

It is a false report that "infections are increasing" because all that means is that more testing is being accomplished and hence more positives are showing up.

Now remember what I said about this being pure bull**** from the CDC and then look at this chart from John's Hopkins school of medicine https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

The other countries on this map have no political points to make and so this misreporting of new cases or deaths due to the Wuhan Virus isn't necessary.

In 1861 - 1865 the U.S. fought the "Civil War, said to be the
deadliest war in U.S. History, when some 755,000 were killed. In
simple terms the death rate was 550 a week or 78.57 per day.

In 1955 - 1975 the U.S. Engaged in the Vietnam "war" and while some
58,209 died in total during the "war" 1968 proved to be the most
deadly with some 16,899 dying, or a rate of 46 per day. It is of
interest to note that these figures were great enough to panic the
U.S. and up to 20,000 fled the country to avoid serving in the
Military and "being sent to Vietnam to die".

The first death recorded in the U.S. due to the current Coronavirus
pandemic was on, in the U.S., seems to have been on 1 march, and as
of May 18, 2020, 21:57 GMT, some 79 days later, 91,730 had died, a
casualty rate of 1,161 a day.

It would appear that the current virus pandemic, based on death rates
as is done in time of war, is the most catastrophic event in the
history of the United States.


The losses in 'our recent unpleasantness' was from a much
smaller population, something just over 30 million
altogether in 1860.

The Hong Kong 1969 influenza however killed som e100
thousand of a US population just over 200 million (versus
about 330 million today.)

While I do not dispute your numbers I think that you misrepresent the
picture.

But perhaps I'm wrong. So tell us why so many were running to Canada
to avoid a death rate of 46/day during the worst year of the so called
war? It might also be noted that only about 30% of the troops
stationed in Vietnam were draftees.
Or why one reads in the news about numbers of deaths in Afghanistan or
Iraq or any of the other strange places that the U.S. seems to have
"invaded". After all in terms of the U.S. population they are, well,
not even peanuts.

Rationalize it anyway that makes you feel better, but the fact remains
that death rates, to date, due to the virus outnumber losses due to
combat by a factor of ~200% in the worst war that the U.S. ever fought
and a factor of 400% over any war in living memory.

I might add that you have, in the past, enumerated the deaths in U.S.
hospitals as tragedies. You didn't say "But what the Hell! They were
only 0.06% of the population". Or bicycle deaths. Good Lord! They
seem to be about 800 a year, but to be safe lets call it 900
annually. Or about 0.0002% by population, certainly such a low
percentage can be safely ignored.
--
cheers,

John B.


I don't know how many men actually absconded to Canada. My
memory of it was 'all hat, no cattle' but I don't know.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~jjones/hstrnt.html
state that:
"A great variety of numbers are repeated with little investigation or
justification. Citation of a person or a publication just puts at one
remove the question of where the figures came from. The only reliable
answer is that tens of thousands of draft resisters and deserters came
to Canada during the Vietnam War. As will be seen, any more specific
assertion involves assumption or speculation. The quest for a more
specific quantity fragments into the following set of questions."

But I, personally, don't know as I was "over there" making the world
safe from communism, or so I was once told :-(
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/18/2020 7:56 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 7:21:25 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2020 9:51 PM, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:42:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/18/2020 6:38 PM, James wrote:

I bought a gravel bike so that I have more variety of routes and places
to explore.Â* I often ride a mix of bitumen and gravel, and the MTB is
just a slug on bitumen.Â* Furthermore my gravel bike has 3 water bottles
in the main triangle, which is really handy around here in hot weather.
It's also good for towing my shopping trailer.

I certainly agree about mountain bikes being "slugs" on paved roads.

If you ride nobbies.

I have a friend who is not an avid cyclist, although he did some 1000
mile camping tours when much younger. He likes riding under a full moon,
and usually invites me to ride with him. I use one of my road bikes, he
uses his mountain bike. In fact, he uses it everywhere, except off road.
He has no interest in riding on dirt.

At one time, he mentioned that he still had his 1970s Trek touring bike,
but it needed lots of work. I said that bike would be much more
appropriate for his riding and offered to overhaul it for him. And I put
many hours into a complete overhaul. (I may have mentioned having to
disassemble the Campy touring rear derailleur to get it working.)

He came to get the completed bike, test rode it once around my block and
said he didn't like it. It didn't feel stable enough for him. AFAIK he's
never ridden it since.

Did you set it up for racing or touring?

I set it up as it was. Admittedly, he had narrow rims and tires - I
don't remember the size, but narrower than the 28s or 32s I usually
ride. I suggested going wider, but he's not interested in spending the
money. I think he's a man of small budget.


I've suggested he at least get slick road tires for his mountain bike,
but so far he's resisted even that. Ah well!

Based on experience, I won't tour with some one using slicks. They are
always first off the cab for lone cyclist accidents. Loss of traction and
they are flat on the deck. YMMV.

Really? My wife and I rode Avocet slicks as long as we could get them.
She still has them on one bike. No traction problems at all.

So I guess our M does V.

I ride thousands of miles a year in the rain and think slicks are the best choice for road riding, although I use a modest treaded tire like a Zaffiro or Pasella during fall because of the leaves. Slicks suck on slippery surfaces like mud, rocks, wet grass, etc., -- obviously.

I stuck some Ritchey Tom Slick 1.4" tires on my mountain bike for dry
weather pavement and gravel riding. As their web site states, "Ritchey's
Tom Slick is the original gravel monster. With deep, grip-boosting VFAâ„¢
grooves and a tough Stronghold reinforced casing, these tires are what
you want when the ride keeps going after the pavement ends."

I don't think that I need a separate gravel bike. Only one set of bottle
braze-ons but I'm using a BBB Fueltank XL holder which can hold a 1.5
liter bottle very securely https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002S3JX7I/.

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:50:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2020 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 10:53:32 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 12:14:45 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote:

Ralph, the normal deaths in the population is 16.4 per 100,000 per week.
The present death rate is 16.7. It is a complicated measurement since so
many people are presently dying because of auto deaths, suicides, delayed
surgeries and a sudden increase in deaths from alcoholism.

Some units or additional context in your first posting would have been
nice.

The important thing is that I GAVE you the rates of deaths and during
this so-called "Crisis" that additional deaths are only 1,500 or so and not 80,000+.

This illness is hardly worse that a bad cold and while they are screaming
"KEEP THE SHUTDOWN" infections and deaths are dropping.

It is a false report that "infections are increasing" because all that
means is that more testing is being accomplished and hence more positives are showing up.

Now remember what I said about this being pure bull**** from the CDC and
then look at this chart from John's Hopkins school of medicine
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

The other countries on this map have no political points to make and so
this misreporting of new cases or deaths due to the Wuhan Virus isn't necessary.


So the US has five times the population of the UK and 3 times the reported
deaths. Where is the egregious misrepresentation here? Could it be that
your political system is broken and Americans aren’t very good at following
instructions?

As I've explained several times, the actual measurements of deaths are so wildly different from country to country that you can't possibly reach any decisions based on that statistic.

Then what source of data are we to use if we want to really understand
the effects of this virus?

Are we to accept only the "data" given without references by an
unemployed high school dropout? Is that the best there is?

Are we to accept the words of an umemployed college teacher who among other things can tell someone in another state 2,000 miles away that a tree branch wasn't overhanging the road and head level?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-...us-death-count

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bir...dless-of-cause

""The intent is ... if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that," she added." (Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force)

""In the normal course, autopsies would then determine whether the person died of the effects of the COVID virus, whether the person had a brain tumor or brain hemorrhage for example that might be unrelated to it and what the relative significance of both the infection and the pre-existing disease is," Baden told Fox News.

However, the number of autopsies being performed could be low due to the danger of infection, he said."

https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus...us-deaths.html

How about we go directly to the CDC?

CDC Weekly COVID-19 Death Counts
Week ending date | COVID-19 Deaths | Deaths from All Causes | Percent of Expected Deaths

Feb. 1 0 56,557 95
Feb. 8 0 57,067 96
Feb. 15 0 56,079 95
Feb. 22 0 55,605 96
Feb. 29 5 54,900 96
March 7 19 54,222 94
March 14 44 52,187 91
March 21 447 51,428 91
March 28 2,205 51,602 92
April 4* 4,462 46,917 84
April 11* 2,499 22,012 40

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...w-average-cdc/

Of course the website could be misstating the information from the CDC but just try and discover this table at the CDC site where you don't have to have limited access. This article is written by an insurance agent that deals with these sorts of numbers all of the time. and knows how to access them.

Do anything in those "covid-19 deaths" numbers in any way suggest 90,000 covid deaths?

On Tue, 19 May 2020 12:40:58 -0700, cyclintom wrote:


Are we to accept the words of an umemployed college teacher who among
other things can tell someone in another state 2,000 miles away that a
tree branch wasn't overhanging the road and head level?

Google street view.
They always catch my lawn when it is unmown.

On 5/19/2020 3:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:50:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2020 4:52 PM, wrote:

As I've explained several times, the actual measurements of deaths are so wildly different from country to country that you can't possibly reach any decisions based on that statistic.

Then what source of data are we to use if we want to really understand
the effects of this virus?

Are we to accept only the "data" given without references by an
unemployed high school dropout? Is that the best there is?

Are we to accept the words of an umemployed college teacher who among other things can tell someone in another state 2,000 miles away that a tree branch wasn't overhanging the road and head level?

There's a difference between being retired (as I am) and being
unemployed (as you are, Tom). I'm not looking for a job. I don't need
one, so I've turned down requests to work. You've complained about
grocery prices and complained that nobody will hire you.

One major difference is that I never, ever complain about grocery prices.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-...us-death-count

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bir...dless-of-cause

Hmm. So instead of listening to an unemployed high school dropout, we
should listen to Fox News, where the dropout gets most of his ideas? Wow.

But what's your point? If Colorado's count is "only" 878 instead of just
over 1000, do you pretend 878 deaths is no problem?

https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus...us-deaths.html

Uh huh. Three COVID deaths the the coroners didn't hear of, because of a
change in reporting practices. And the significance is... ?


How about we go directly to the CDC?

How about you give a link directly to the CDC?


CDC Weekly COVID-19 Death Counts
Week ending date | COVID-19 Deaths | Deaths from All Causes | Percent of Expected Deaths

Feb. 1 0 56,557 95
Feb. 8 0 57,067 96
Feb. 15 0 56,079 95
Feb. 22 0 55,605 96
Feb. 29 5 54,900 96
March 7 19 54,222 94
March 14 44 52,187 91
March 21 447 51,428 91
March 28 2,205 51,602 92
April 4* 4,462 46,917 84
April 11* 2,499 22,012 40

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...w-average-cdc/

Of course the website could be misstating the information from the CDC but just try and discover this table at the CDC site...

Well, that's what most of us would do if we were trying to quote
official numbers. But then, most of had to do that sort of thing for
term papers in order to graduate from high school.

So what's your point? That there really aren't any COVID deaths? That
it's only a few dozen? That there would not have been any more deaths if
isolation policies had not been imposed?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 19 May 2020 22:27:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/19/2020 3:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:50:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2020 4:52 PM, wrote:

As I've explained several times, the actual measurements of deaths are so wildly different from country to country that you can't possibly reach any decisions based on that statistic.

Then what source of data are we to use if we want to really understand
the effects of this virus?

Are we to accept only the "data" given without references by an
unemployed high school dropout? Is that the best there is?

Are we to accept the words of an umemployed college teacher who among other things can tell someone in another state 2,000 miles away that a tree branch wasn't overhanging the road and head level?

There's a difference between being retired (as I am) and being
unemployed (as you are, Tom). I'm not looking for a job. I don't need
one, so I've turned down requests to work. You've complained about
grocery prices and complained that nobody will hire you.

One major difference is that I never, ever complain about grocery prices.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-...us-death-count

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bir...dless-of-cause

Hmm. So instead of listening to an unemployed high school dropout, we
should listen to Fox News, where the dropout gets most of his ideas? Wow.

But what's your point? If Colorado's count is "only" 878 instead of just
over 1000, do you pretend 878 deaths is no problem?

https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus...us-deaths.html

Uh huh. Three COVID deaths the the coroners didn't hear of, because of a
change in reporting practices. And the significance is... ?


How about we go directly to the CDC?

How about you give a link directly to the CDC?


CDC Weekly COVID-19 Death Counts
Week ending date | COVID-19 Deaths | Deaths from All Causes | Percent of Expected Deaths

Feb. 1 0 56,557 95
Feb. 8 0 57,067 96
Feb. 15 0 56,079 95
Feb. 22 0 55,605 96
Feb. 29 5 54,900 96
March 7 19 54,222 94
March 14 44 52,187 91
March 21 447 51,428 91
March 28 2,205 51,602 92
April 4* 4,462 46,917 84
April 11* 2,499 22,012 40

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...w-average-cdc/

Of course the website could be misstating the information from the CDC but just try and discover this table at the CDC site...

Well, that's what most of us would do if we were trying to quote
official numbers. But then, most of had to do that sort of thing for
term papers in order to graduate from high school.

So what's your point? That there really aren't any COVID deaths? That
it's only a few dozen? That there would not have been any more deaths if
isolation policies had not been imposed?

Well, quite obviously you just don't understand Frank. The whole Covid
thing is a vast conspiracy to prevent The Golden God from being
elected President for Life, in according to the secret instructions
contained in the Constitution.

At present it seems to be a conspiracy between the Democrats and some
little green people, possibly from Mars, however it is expected that
further investigation will reveal additional conspirators. Currently
Tinkers, Tailors, Solders and Sailors are being considered as
"persons of interest" but rich men and poor men will certainly not be
overlooked. And of course Doctors and Lawyers are always worthy of
investigation.

But we are trying to keep this quiet until we "get the goods on them"
so don't be blathering this all over the Internet.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 7:27:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/19/2020 3:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 3:50:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2020 4:52 PM, wrote:

As I've explained several times, the actual measurements of deaths are so wildly different from country to country that you can't possibly reach any decisions based on that statistic.

Then what source of data are we to use if we want to really understand
the effects of this virus?

Are we to accept only the "data" given without references by an
unemployed high school dropout? Is that the best there is?

Are we to accept the words of an umemployed college teacher who among other things can tell someone in another state 2,000 miles away that a tree branch wasn't overhanging the road and head level?

There's a difference between being retired (as I am) and being
unemployed (as you are, Tom). I'm not looking for a job. I don't need
one, so I've turned down requests to work. You've complained about
grocery prices and complained that nobody will hire you.

One major difference is that I never, ever complain about grocery prices.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-...us-death-count

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bir...dless-of-cause

Hmm. So instead of listening to an unemployed high school dropout, we
should listen to Fox News, where the dropout gets most of his ideas? Wow.

But what's your point? If Colorado's count is "only" 878 instead of just
over 1000, do you pretend 878 deaths is no problem?

https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus...us-deaths.html

Uh huh. Three COVID deaths the the coroners didn't hear of, because of a
change in reporting practices. And the significance is... ?


How about we go directly to the CDC?

How about you give a link directly to the CDC?


CDC Weekly COVID-19 Death Counts
Week ending date | COVID-19 Deaths | Deaths from All Causes | Percent of Expected Deaths

Feb. 1 0 56,557 95
Feb. 8 0 57,067 96
Feb. 15 0 56,079 95
Feb. 22 0 55,605 96
Feb. 29 5 54,900 96
March 7 19 54,222 94
March 14 44 52,187 91
March 21 447 51,428 91
March 28 2,205 51,602 92
April 4* 4,462 46,917 84
April 11* 2,499 22,012 40

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/04...w-average-cdc/

Of course the website could be misstating the information from the CDC but just try and discover this table at the CDC site...

Well, that's what most of us would do if we were trying to quote
official numbers. But then, most of had to do that sort of thing for
term papers in order to graduate from high school.

So what's your point? That there really aren't any COVID deaths? That
it's only a few dozen? That there would not have been any more deaths if
isolation policies had not been imposed?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Sure Frank, people are trying to fool you with numbers counter to the truth.. You, like my FBI friend who is hiding in his basement like Biden, has total and complete faith in that 90,000+ number. You and Jay would make a good couple. You both love to close your eyes to reality.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...nchs-data.html

If you look at the percentage of deaths as a percentage of the total deaths it is only 0.55%.

Assuming that the next 6 weeks had what it supposedly level off at - 2400/week that would give us 2,400 x 6 = 14,865 + 5,000 (considering the incomplete data from the last two weeks) which is less than 20,000.

This is far less than the 90,000 being reported no? The pneumonia deaths are unrelated to covid-19 as the historic graph proves. But it should be pretty obvious that they have to use a great many deaths from natural means to achieve that number. SO WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS?

You don't think that this is entirely political in nature? That the people that are actually dying from this virus are those expected to die in this time anyway? Run back to your basement, the boogeyman is out to get you.