COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Brother, Italy locked down AFTER their outbreak started.

China used their damn brain and locked down BEFORE their outbreak started..these are significantly different situations. (Again, humans know about epidemics, these things are all predictable. We have volumes of books in every major university in America outlining manners in which to respond to a epidemic and predict its pattern. China did a better job at this as the Guinea pig than we did with multiple examples already have taken place in front of us (Wuhan, Iran, Italy)).

NYC locked down BEFORE their outbreak started as well. Had they locked down after they would've been looking at maybe 6k dead per day, not 2k.

---

It seems you are trying to argue for why China’s bogus numbers were correct. But we know they were not. And no, they did not lockdown before their outbreak started, we now know Covid was in the US as early as December 13th. So China’s Covid outbreak started much earlier than they thought (and told everyone else). Their January lockdowns were still a full month after Covid had already hit the US. They did lockdown as soon as they realized the scope of the problem (which the US did not). But even then, they failed to tell the rest of the world the scope and lied about their numbers to downplay that scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

So long as that keeps going over your head, I would expect it to get repeated.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

My goodness. Are you even capable of making a single post that isn't dripping in ignorance? :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

It seems you are trying to argue for why China’s bogus numbers were correct. But we know they were not. And no, they did not lockdown before their outbreak started, we now know Covid was in the US as early as December 13th. So China’s Covid outbreak started much earlier than they thought (and told everyone else). Their January lockdowns were still a full month after Covid had already hit the US. They did lockdown as soon as they realized the scope of the problem (which the US did not). But even then, they failed to tell the rest of the world the scope and lied about their numbers to downplay that scope.

---

No, I am arguing why china having significantly lower numbers is not evidence that their numbers are lies. It is to be expected given how they reacted.

China first had cases in november, but they didnt have an outbreak until january. They locked down before their systems actually got overwhelmed. Italy waited until their systems were overwhelmed to realize what was going on.

NYC got lucky that CA locked down and started a wave of lockdowns across the country, because them locking down when they did saved them BIG TIME. Had they locked down a week later they would have probably experienced 3-4x the amount of fatality during that outbreak. Remember, we are talking exponential growth here.

In November and December yes China lied about it and its scope. In january they walked that back and handed us the cheat sheet telling us how quick of spread we should expect and when we can expect to hit outbreak thresholds.

Late march NYC had theirs, exactly as predicted by chinas data set.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I was correcting your comment regarding intelligence.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

In your warped mind? Of course. In reality, you simply gave yet another example of your hypocritical racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No, I am arguing why china having significantly lower numbers is not evidence that their numbers are lies. It is to be expected given how they reacted.

China first had cases in november, but they didnt have an outbreak until january. They locked down before their systems actually got overwhelmed. Italy waited until their systems were overwhelmed to realize what was going on.

NYC got lucky that CA locked down and started a wave of lockdowns across the country, because them locking down when they did saved them BIG TIME. Had they locked down a week later they would have probably experienced 3-4x the amount of fatality during that outbreak. Remember, we are talking exponential growth here.

In November and December yes China lied about it and its scope. In january they walked that back and handed us the cheat sheet telling us how quick of spread we should expect and when we can expect to hit outbreak thresholds.

Late march NYC had theirs, exactly as predicted by chinas data set.

---

But it wasn’t just that their numbers were low, people also cited several eyewitnesses who said the number of dead was way higher than the government said. You literally laughed at those eyewitnesses. Well, turns out they were right.

And this is the problem with your approach, you are saying we should only look at the numbers to see if they are possible and ignore everything else we know about China and all other evidence. Yes, their low numbers were theoretically possible, but if you had applied any level of context about how China operates or historical precedent (of them lying about things like this) you’d know them having drastically lower numbers was something you should be skeptical of.

Because all of us used that context, we all correctly identified their numbers were incorrect. Because you did not, and instead took China’s notoriously untruthful government at face value, you were wrong.


And obviously you didn’t read the article, China continued lying and downplaying their numbers all the way into Mid March...

Why do I get the feeling that you still don’t truly believe China’s numbers were wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

But it wasn’t just that their numbers were low, people also cited several eyewitnesses who said the number of dead was way higher than the government said. You literally laughed at those eyewitnesses. Well, turns out they were right.

---

Of course I'm going to laugh when people say eyewitness testimony and shady history as their evidence for taking that as truth.

You know the same 2 things apply to the world trade center being rigged with bombs? Eyewitnesses and shady govt history.

If I went around proclaiming that as truth based on those two parameters, you wouldnt laugh at me?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Of course I'm going to laugh when people say eyewitness testimony and shady history as their evidence for taking that as truth.

You know the same 2 things apply to the world trade center being rigged with bombs? Eyewitnesses and shady govt history.

If I went around proclaiming that as truth based on those two parameters, you wouldnt laugh at me

---

But it was those things coupled with unusually low numbers that while possible, were still abnormal. It was a totality if evidence.

It seems you are trying to argue we were stupid for believing as we did when it turned out we were right.

I think you are so conceited you believe we were right and you were wrong because we made a lucky guess, as opposed it realizing we correctly interpreted the very obvious evidence in a way you did not.

I reiterate, why do I get the feeling you still don’t believe China’s numbers were wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

But it was those things coupled with unusually low numbers that while possible, were still abnormal. It was a totality if evidence.

It seems you are trying to argue we were stupid for believing as we did when it turned out we were right.

I think you are so conceited you believe we were right and you were wrong because we made a lucky guess, as opposed it realizing we correctly interpreted the very obvious evidence in a way you did not.

I reiterate, why do I get the feeling you still don’t believe China’s numbers were wrong...

---

Dude is just so otherworldly intelligent, that to the layman he looks the opposite. We are all too simple-minded to grasp his advanced thought process. Questioning what he says only exposes one's own ignorance.

Tread carefully or be made a fool by his staggering depth of knowledge on any and all fields of research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Brother, Italy locked down AFTER their outbreak started.

China used their damn brain and locked down BEFORE their outbreak started..these are significantly different situations. (Again, humans know about epidemics, these things are all predictable. We have volumes of books in every major university in America outlining manners in which to respond to a epidemic and predict its pattern. China did a better job at this as the Guinea pig than we did with multiple examples already have taken place in front of us (Wuhan, Iran, Italy)).

NYC locked down BEFORE their outbreak started as well. Had they locked down after they would've been looking at maybe 6k dead per day, not 2k.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

One of the benefits of the Chinese style of government is that when they say lock down, you say how high. Americans think it's our ****ing birth right to go out and intentionally ignore common sense and get people killed because of our freedumz. Hell that's literally what we've spent several days/pages arguing. You've been trying to say forever how going into a church is an essential service despite the fact that businesses that offer services that literally encourage congregation is what's killing people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

You've been trying to say forever how going into a church is an essential service despite the fact that businesses that offer services that literally encourage congregation is what's killing people.

---

there are a LOT of situations resulting in eventually fatal virus infections, but you only want to focus on churches like it's the primary one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

there are a LOT of situations resulting in eventually fatal virus infections, but you only want to focus on churches like it's the primary one

---

The ones in this case were literally that way because they were active COVID infection sights. You do know that's why they were classified red. Right? It wasn't a hypothetical. It was a real world infection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

The ones in this case were literally that way because they were active COVID infection sights. You do know that's why they were classified red. Right? It wasn't a hypothetical. It was a real world infection.

---

the AREAS were classified red, not specifically the churches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

the AREAS were classified red, not specifically the churches

---

Well gee-whiz, let's try to put one and one together here. If the area is classified red and the church is within the area....

https://media1.giphy.com/media/3o7bt...yf0ArS/200.gif

Fauci will stay when Biden takes over.