(04-28-2020 12:50 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-28-2020 12:47 PM)nogretheogre Wrote:  

(04-28-2020 12:32 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(04-28-2020 12:05 PM)nogretheogre Wrote:  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-healt...ood-lungs/

Some researchers "think." No finding to support their hypothesis. What research has identified is that influenza is more lethal and we have never shut down a thing during flu season.

Look at Sweden vs Norway. One country isolated and the other didn't...nearly identical spread and mortality rate. Neighboring countries with similar lifestyle and diet.

I watched a lecture recently. Two hugely qualified MDs. Isolating has shown a MASSIVE spike in child abuse, spousal abuse, alcoholism, suicides, depression, and has disseminated our economy. It's also severely weakening our immune system and may lead to real issues fighting disease down the road.

The hysteria will cause much more damage than many realize. Permanent damage.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Mostly true except for the flu being more deadly as well as the Sweden bit -

Sweden- https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sw...index.html

Flu, with a season spanning 7months, vs COVID of 6 weeks, with majority of world on lockdown to limit. We would have numbers in the millions if we did not lock down.

From Johns Hopkins website
COVID-19: Approximately 206,811 deaths reported worldwide; 54,877 deaths in the U.S., as of Apr. 27, 2020.*
Flu: 291,000 to 646,000 deaths worldwide; 12,000 to 61,000 deaths in the U.S. per year.
Influenza only kills 0.1% of the individuals it infects, while the estimated COVID-19 case fatality rate could be as high as 3.5% — 35x higher!

And I wouldnt lump "Research suggests" into "some researchers think." This is ongoing, but there are many studies supporting this as more than a pulmonary disease.

ALL research I've seen states COVID-19 has a mortality rate of between .001-.005%. Flu is .005%-.007%.

As far as Sweden vs Norway, you do realize that the difference between 22 and 7 deaths per 100,000 is statistically insignificant. Factor in suicides and all of the other fallout points I mentioned and I guarantee that number is flipped. What will a massive increase in child sexual abuse, spousal abuse, poverty, and depression do to the health of a society? People out of work, homelessness, bankruptcy, eating cheap foods...all to avoid 13 more deaths per 100,000. Think about long term.

Check this out. Watch both videos.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/?utm_content=bufferc50b6

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I'm re-reading my post and there's a tone that sounds like I'm attacking. I really don't intend for that, but I don't have enough time to re-work it to figure out how to take that tone out. Just note that I'm not trying to go after Tribal, just the contents of his post.

If it doesn't make good sense to continue isolating, then why are the health organizations that are focusing all their efforts on researching and treating this virus recommending that we continue isolating? Are you arguing that they are not "thinking about long term"? This is an appeal to authority argument, however the fallacy also carries this caveat: Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. I don't think that lifesitenews.com is where we'll find experts with a demonstrated depth of knowledge specifically with regard to COVID-19, based on the stories on their homepage.

An economics professor at Northwestern created a model of the potential economic harm of reopening if the virus is as bad as experts think. His model showed significantly worse economic fallout from reopening too soon than waiting until more testing and treatments are available. https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/23/e...lockdowns/ From the article: "He projects a yearlong lockdown to cost around $4.2 trillion, or 22% of the economy. Lifting containment measures would help — the economy would only shrink by about 7% — but could lead to 500,000 additional deaths, or $6.1 trillion all told."

With regard to the fatality rate, https://lmgtfy.com/?q=covid+19+fatality+rate Now not all the research you've seen says .001-.005%. From this interview with a biostatistics professor, https://www.npr.org/2020/04/24/844562935...o-estimate experts are estimating the fatality rate is below 1%. Based on the numbers you quoted above, if you consider a .5% fatality rate, that's orders of magnitude larger than the flu. Here's another article about COVID-19 vs. the flu: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/...-than-flu/

In general, people calling for re-opening society are saying "I don't think it's that bad". The experts are still saying "There's a very good chance that it's that bad". I think they are taking all of the potential economic problems that are happening or going to happen into account when they say that.