nice pivot.Exactly. It's the same for the IFR. Glad you caught on.
The point remains that you are trying to use an omicron transmission in 2022 to make a point against the mask rules of 2020.
nice pivot.Exactly. It's the same for the IFR. Glad you caught on.
Where did CDC say that the number of deaths was vastly overcounted?Wait….so correcting the statement to accurately match the CDC’s position is now a Right Wing Talk Show commentary?
Talk about looking for something where non exists…..
Why is this some sort of hoops game dad? You 100% lost the debate on mask and the jabs. 100% lost. You should admit you were wrong and look to help others who said no to the jab. I will be looking for helpers.nice pivot.
The point remains that you are trying to use an omicron transmission in 2022 to make a point against the mask rules of 2020.
Where did I say or imply that? You have a bad habit of misquoting people to try and make your argument sound more plausible. I have no question that 1,000,000+ died. Like I said a few times, Covid is a Darwin disease and that's exactly who we should have protected...the most vulnerable. Those most likely to be susceptible to serious health consequences. My point is about policies, not the actual number of deaths. I never mentioned once overcounting in this string.Watfly was implying that counted deaths were 20 times as high as actual. That’s nonsense.
That's exactly what you said. The over 60's were the ones dying because it would be common for them to have the comorbidities (ie 95% of the deaths). Which I happen to agree with you.Like I said? I said nothing of the sort.
What was the point in your claim that 950K people had comorbidities, out of a total of 1M who died from covid?Where did I say or imply that? You have a bad habit of misquoting people to try and make your argument sound more plausible. I have no question that 1,000,000+ died. Like I said a few times, Covid is a Darwin disease and that's exactly who we should have protected...the most vulnerable. Those most likely to be susceptible to serious health consequences. My point is about policies, not the actual number of deaths. I never mentioned once overcounting in this string.
That's exactly what you said. The over 60's were the ones dying because it would be common for them to have the comorbidities (ie 95% of the deaths). Which I happen to agree with you.
At least try to debate in good faith.
Out of curiosity, can you acknowledge that out of the 1 million that died that roughly 950,000 died with on average 4 other comorbidities? Or as the CDC also calls them "causes of death".
Are you just yanking my chain now? Or pulling an Espola?What was the point in your claim that 950K people had comorbidities, out of a total of 1M who died from covid?
No. I am asking what you meant by your post.Are you just yanking my chain now? Or pulling an Espola?
Am I in the Twilight Zone? Seriously, did you just ignore what I said in my posts? I couldn't have been more clear that policies should have been developed to protect the vulnerable (and not blanket policies) based upon who was at risk which is/was/ abundantly clear based on the data that was clearly disclosed by the CDC. When the CDC says that 95% of the population that died has these characteristics don't you think our focus should be developing policies that directly protect them, as opposed to treating everyone with the same generic policy and causing unnecessary consequences to those not at risk while killing those at risk. That's insanity.No. I am asking what you meant by your post.
Did you mean that covid primarily killed the old and sick?
Or did you mean that, because of the comorbidities, those deaths don’t really count?
Watty, keep in mine that some Docs and Govs like Dad and Espola in NY used the elderly that were going to die soon because of serious underlying issues and old age. It's called, "speed up death" process to cause fear among the healthy and those who were sleeping spiritually. The place my mom was at before she passed away with 4+ major health issues as well at age 9,0 said they had lots of Covid deaths at Hospice Care. Total BS!! When dad says 1,000,000 died, he is misleading us all. He's not a dumb dumb and is acting like Espola and GG at the same time. He knows that they counted gun shot victims, car accident trauma victims, stab victims and all victims that were about to die from other underlying reasons like Stroke and Cancer as Covid deaths. Why? Triple Pay Bonus Baby!!!! ((TPBB)). I know some rich lib docs who took advantage of this scam and made off like the bandits that they are. My pals wife is ranking it in with big Pharma and record breaking Blood Thinner sales in 2022 and she feels justified by her big haul the last two years. Yay, I'm so happy for her. He did loans and is now looking for work so he feels the heat because they have to pay 50/50 to keep their $2 million house. News The fact dad still sits here and has debates with Grace & Hound makes me wonder what this Dad stands for. He comes across as a nice daddy but then goes Grandpa Espola quickly.Where did I say or imply that? You have a bad habit of misquoting people to try and make your argument sound more plausible. I have no question that 1,000,000+ died. Like I said a few times, Covid is a Darwin disease and that's exactly who we should have protected...the most vulnerable. Those most likely to be susceptible to serious health consequences. My point is about policies, not the actual number of deaths. I never mentioned once overcounting in this string.
That's exactly what you said. The over 60's were the ones dying because it would be common for them to have the comorbidities (ie 95% of the deaths). Which I happen to agree with you.
At least try to debate in good faith.
Yes, it's the Twilight Projection Zone. It's a freaking trip to be here at this time on the planet. I find it an honor to serve with you watty. We got this brotherAm I in the Twilight Zone? Seriously, did you just ignore what I said in my posts? I couldn't have been more clear that policies should have been developed to protect the vulnerable (and not blanket policies) based upon who was at risk which is/was/ abundantly clear based on the data that was clearly disclosed by the CDC. When the CDC says that 95% of the population that died has these characteristics don't you think our focus should be developing policies that directly protect them, as opposed to treating everyone with the same generic policy and causing unnecessary consequences to those not at risk while killing those at risk. That's insanity.
nice pivot.
The point remains that you are trying to use an omicron transmission in 2022 to make a point against the mask rules of 2020.
We did not have any technology or policy capable of doing what you ask.Am I in the Twilight Zone? Seriously, did you just ignore what I said in my posts? I couldn't have been more clear that policies should have been developed to protect the vulnerable (and not blanket policies) based upon who was at risk which is/was/ abundantly clear based on the data that was clearly disclosed by the CDC. When the CDC says that 95% of the population that died has these characteristics don't you think our focus should be developing policies that directly protect them, as opposed to treating everyone with the same generic policy and causing unnecessary consequences to those not at risk while killing those at risk. That's insanity.
What the what? Have I confused you?Where did CDC say that the number of deaths was vastly overcounted?
What point are you trying to make? I thought you were trying to argue that covid did not actually kill approximately 1 million Americans.What the what? Have I confused you?
CDC uses the term WITH not OF….yet you conflate my correcting you on that to an argument about overcounting deaths.
That’s as logical as the “well, he had a record and tested positive for an illegal substance so the cop was within his right’s to shoot him . . . even though he wasn’t being a threat.” defense for cold blooded murder.Out of curiosity, can you acknowledge that out of the 1 million that died that roughly 950,000 died with on average 4 other comorbidities? Or as the CDC also calls them "causes of death".
It’s not just grammar….they have different meanings. I wonder why the CDC would use one not the other. Maybe they realize that Covid contributed to their death (significantly or insignificantly) but they are unable to determine that it was the only cause.What point are you trying to make? I thought you were trying to argue that covid did not actually kill approximately 1 million Americans.
Are you actually a stickler for grammar, and seriously bothered by the distinction between “of“ and “with“?
If so, I apologize. Bad grammar should never rear it’s ugly head.