It's a bad bug, no doubt about it, but the numbers this guy is quoting jive with what I have been finding. While it is pretty vicious to the elderly and those with other high risk conditions, any number of other viruses can do the same damage, including the flu. In reality, it's not as bad as a lot of other afflictions. That's a hard thing to say, and a bitter pill to swallow for those who have lost someone to it, but the CDC's own numbers bear it out, and they are there for anyone to see. We'll loose over 600,000 this year from heart diseases alone. You have to wonder about the false negative percentages also. They do not report on any of that at all. And you have to look at the positive results also. People that test positive and don't get sick, or just get cold symptoms. The numbers on who gets tested and who doesn't is still puzzling. The sad reality is, people live, and then they die. Ain't none of us gonna get out of here alive. You can step off the curb and get hit by a bus, or any one of 1,000 different stupid scenarios. 366,000 + "confirmed" cases in the US, and who is checking on the accuracy of that number? And the 10,000 deaths? How many have been inadvertently been added to that total "just because they could?" 350,000,000 people that don't have it, and 10,000,000 people thrown out of work due to the panic. What are the collateral damage death counts going to be from the poverty, stress and strain that this is going to cause?? Selective quarantine and isolation of known carriers of the virus and those at highest risk is a lot easier, and less damaging to the economy. One whole hell of a lot less people to monitor, maybe 500,000, to 750,000 instead of 350 million.. The argument is that it's just easier and more effective to restrict everyone, but are you REALLY doing that? How much of the crush of people flocking to the hospitals in the "hot zones" REALLY need to be there and are just panic driven because they don't feel go, and are making a bad thing worse??Germany is getting a lot of praise for their low numbers, but how accurate are they? What is the difference in population? What does genetics and culture and climate have to do with the transmission? New York City"s numbers are more than double that, but they have miles and miles of virus breading grounds that they call the subway where people are packed into it like sardines in a can all day every day, and no discussion on what that has to do with their high numbers. So many variables, so many "expert" opinions and contradictions 99.9% or the population doesn't have it and are not sick, but that .1% looks really big under a microscope especially when driven by the news media which is driving the panic.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
Topic: Virus second opion (Read 14871 times)
