What if the lockdown was a big mistake?

submitted by Unicorn from dailybreeze.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Jesus said:

No, the mortality rate is nowhere near that high if you account for endemic areas, infection rate, age, and health. For the majority it is well under 1%.

You are refuted in the above post on this very thread.

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/428w/what_if_the_lockdown_was_a_big_mistake/evdr

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You have not taken into account asymptomatic cases, which would thus bring down the lethality.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Now you're making my point- no one knows how many asymtomatic cases there were because it's a new virus. Absent that knowledge, as was the case when lockdown started, the apporpriate thing to do is go into lockdown.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They do know, and it is far greater than symptomatic cases. But they may use the new antibody bogus test for a immunocomromising infection to test for it. Lets hope not.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Jesus don't you see that you're just pulling this stuff out of your behind?

What if the police were permitted to use the same level of "evidence" and act against you on the basis of it?

So cops sit around and say,

"What if Jesus is going to do [some terrible thing]."

"Yeah, good thought."

......

......

......

"Better throw him in jail forever."

"OK, I'll go get the cruiser."

Would you accept that chain of reasoning as valid ?

The first question you have to ask yourself when making an argument is - woud I accept this level of "proof" if it were turned against me?