The coronavirus scam

[marke]

....and the right winger fails to understand that he (or she) needs to actually make a case that Fauci knew, or should have known, that such funding would lead to the coronavirus (if this is indeed what happened).

Once more, the right-winger equates correlation with causation.

The connection between Trump and Russians has been taken by some to mean collusion. But, even though there was scant evidence of collusion democrats instigated multiple investigations costing tens of millions of dollars and wasting several years trying, but failing, to prove the allegation was true.

A hundred million Americans have been made aware that Fauci funded research at the Wuhan lab during the time the lab was developing the coronavirus. Credible allegations have been made that Fauci knew what the lab was doing when he funded them. But democrats do not want anyone investigating that allegation, they do not want any money spent to research that connection, they do not want a single day devoted to getting at the truth in that situation. If there is someone who cannot see the clear democrat bias and dishonesty in the cover-up in this case then that person is a moron.

 

[marke]

This thread has been a

From the CDC:

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment, along with the microorganisms these particles carry.

I see. You want to post something on multi-layer cloth masks, something that was not advocated from the beginning, nor was mandated later, nor has been practiced by a large number of Americans.

Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger) but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns ; which increase in number with the volume of speech and specific types of phonation.

There is a huge difference between saying "masks can also block fine droplets" and saying something like, "It has been scientifically demonstrated that cloth masks block 80% to 90% of covid particles in normal use." We know what the science says, and it does not say "cloth masks can be depended upon to block most covid particles." What science says is "cloth masks CAN block covid particles."

13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5,6,15,16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets,4 with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control

Does the science say masks consistently block 50% to 70% of fine covid droplets? No, it does not. It says, again, masks CAN block most fine particles ( we assume that means under certain situations and in certain conditions.)

 

[marke]

What in the world is your point? You are making the claim that Dr. Fauci somehow bears some responsibility for Covid. Well, where is the evidence?

A grade 8 student will know that even if Dr. Fauci funded this lab, and even if that lab deliberately created the virus, Dr. Fauci only bears responsibility for this to the extent that he knew, or should have known, that this would happen.

And you have been repeatedly reminded of this. So where is your case?

If your style of reasoning is adopted, we could blame Einstein for the atom bomb simply because he discovered that E = mc squared.

Try not to let politics cloud your mind. Americans want to know how the covid virus was developed and that requires a look at the Wuhan lab and all those who supported the lab during the time it was developing the covid virus.

 

[marke]

Let's go slowly - do you, or do not understand that mask-wearing is but one of many factors that determines cases?

Actually, it is actually almost impossible that you do not understand this.

So why are you intentionally misrepresenting the truth by such a graph?

Masks cannot be proven to effectively block the transmission of deadly covid particles.

 

[marke]

What science was overturned?

One day we are told: "You must continue to wear masks for the protection of others until the threat rate drops. The next day, with no change in the threat rate, "You no longer have to wear masks if you have been fully vaccinated."

 

[marke]

Misleading (again). I would be stunned if you have credible evidence that a lab in Wuhan developed the coronavirus.

But let's say you are right - that a lab in Wuhan did indeed develop the coronavirus.

It should not have to be said that Fauci's funding of such a lab in Wuhan only puts him in an "at fault" or responsible position if he knew, or reasonably should have known, what the lab was up to.

And for that, you guys bear the burden of proof.

Let's just agree that our government needs to investigate what caused the development of the coronavirus, what caused its leak into the public, and what were the people thinking who supported the research which developed the killer virus.

 

[marke]

I find such statement puzzling - surely you must know that while 90% of the population may be at very low risk for covid complications, that 90% can transmit it to the 10% who are at risk.

Sane Americans keep telling those fearful wimps who are destroying the US economy in misguided and foolish efforts to stamp out a virus that is killing old people at 1/40th the rate cigarette smoke is killing them, "If you are afraid, then stay home and let everyone else go back to work, back to school, back to freedom and responsible living. The government was never given any legitimate power to destroy the lives of tens of millions of Americans to cater to the fears of thousands.

 

[expos4ever]

Masks cannot be proven to effectively block the transmission of deadly covid particles.

I think you are playing with words and engaging in your usual misleading statements. Perhaps it is true that masks cannot be proven to effectively block transmission. But lots of things cannot be proven and yet we have good evidence to support them. From factcheck:

Over the last year, additional research has generally supported the notion that face masks can reduce transmission of the virus, although proof is still lacking.

Numerous lab studies, for example, show that masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads — and may offer some protection to the wearer.

In one study, scientists at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested a variety of face coverings for their ability to prevent the outward spread of particles from a simulated cough. N95 respirators performed the best — blocking 99% of the particles — while medical masks blocked 59% and a cloth mask blocked 51%. The only covering that failed to do much of anything was a face shield, which stopped just 2%.

I suggest you are trying to confuse readers by mounting an argument that solid proof for mask effectiveness is absent (this may be true) when what really matters is what the evidence suggests.

 

[expos4ever]

Did you also know that 90% of the population, which is at very low risk, while they may spread the virus to one at higher risk, cannot infect them if they are immune, either through vaccine or prior infection?

And did you know that 90% of the population can protect the remaining 10% simply by self-quarantining when they are sick or show symptoms, allowing the rest of the population to go about their daily lives as usual?

Your first sentence is misleading. Obviously if someone is immune, they cannot be infected. No one is suggesting otherwise. This first statement of yours really just amounts to the claim that immune people will not get sick. We all know this. The problem is that some of the 10% who are at high risk for serious disease are not immune (even if they are vaccinated as vaccines are not 100% effective).

Your second claim is obviously incorrect. First, even if this 90% had the best of intentions and would self-quarantine if they have symptoms, covid can be transmitted before symptoms appear. Surely you know this. And, in any event, human nature being what it is, this 90% do not all have good intentions and many would not self-quarantine.

 

[expos4ever]

Just because people would live longer if they did not smoke, or drink, or commit immoral sex, or abuse drugs, is no reason to completely destroy the entire economy in stupid efforts to stamp out all remaining risks no matter how slight in the big picture. 12,000 Americans are dying each year from diseases that have been worsened by covid at current rates.

What, exactly are you saying here? I cannot figure out your basic point.

The restrictions make perfect sense to me. 600,000 Americans are dead! That is 3,000 crashed airliners! God knows how high the bodies would be stacked if there were no restrictions. As usual, you guys intentionally frame this issue in misleading ways. Yes, the economy has been hurt. But were the restrictions imposed for no reason? Of course not. You talk about the harm to the economy but, of course, remain conveniently tight-lipped on what would likely have happened in the absence of such restrictions.

You guys make your living out of distortion.

 

[expos4ever]

Americans have been bamboozled by leftist democrats into turning their freedom over the jack-booted fascist thugs who are turning the country into a communist dictatorship under the guise of health and safety.

Again, do they teach you this stuff in the church basement on a Wednesday night? This demonizing language, calculated to sparkle the hind-brains of unsophisticated readers, is the last refuge of a man with no argument.

 

[expos4ever]

About 1,000 Americans a month die from covid and those numbers are falling. Compare that to the 40,000 Americans who die every month from smoking. Where is the panic over those much larger numbers?

Again, not sure how this helps your argument. If you ask me, I think cigarettes should be illegal.

You appear to be arguing that "leftists" are being hypocritical for not calling for a ban on smoking. Well, you are probably right?

But does this mean they are wrong on covid? If so, please explain why.

 

[ok doser]

So, the kung flu virus can alter our DNA, but the "vaccine" derived from it can't?

 

[marke]

I think you are playing with words and engaging in your usual misleading statements. Perhaps it is true that masks cannot be proven to effectively block transmission. But lots of things cannot be proven and yet we have good evidence to support them. From factcheck:

Over the last year, additional research has generally supported the notion that face masks can reduce transmission of the virus, although proof is still lacking.

Numerous lab studies, for example, show that masks can partially block exhaled respiratory droplets, which are thought to be the primary way the virus spreads — and may offer some protection to the wearer.

In one study, scientists at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested a variety of face coverings for their ability to prevent the outward spread of particles from a simulated cough. N95 respirators performed the best — blocking 99% of the particles — while medical masks blocked 59% and a cloth mask blocked 51%. The only covering that failed to do much of anything was a face shield, which stopped just 2%.

I suggest you are trying to confuse readers by mounting an argument that solid proof for mask effectiveness is absent (this may be true) when what really matters is what the evidence suggests.

"Perhaps it is true that masks cannot be proven to effectively block transmission." What else needs to be said? They could add, "Masks can (might) block transmission of the virus, although proof is lacking."

 

[marke]

What, exactly are you saying here? I cannot figure out your basic point.

The restrictions make perfect sense to me. 600,000 Americans are dead! That is 3,000 crashed airliners! God knows how high the bodies would be stacked if there were no restrictions. As usual, you guys intentionally frame this issue in misleading ways. Yes, the economy has been hurt. But were the restrictions imposed for no reason? Of course not. You talk about the harm to the economy but, of course, remain conveniently tight-lipped on what would likely have happened in the absence of such restrictions.

You guys make your living out of distortion.

480,000 Americans die each year from the effects of smoking, yet where is the alarm from the left about those massive deaths which have been occurring every year and are still occurring every year? Are democrat governors demanding the economy be shut down until we can eradicate the threat of death?

600,000 Americans have died from diabetes, heart problems, gunshots, liver failure, and dozens of other causes, and many deaths have been hastened by covid. But that is no reason to trash the US economy and Constitutional freedoms which will do nothing at all to stop the natural course of the epidemic.

 

[marke]

Again, do they teach you this stuff in the church basement on a Wednesday night? This demonizing language, calculated to sparkle the hind-brains of unsophisticated readers, is the last refuge of a man with no argument.

Unscientific utterance by blinded adherents to bad leftist ideas: "If you don't wear a mask you are guilty of attempted murder for exposing others to covid." If that is what you believe you are a moron.

 

[marke]

Again, not sure how this helps your argument. If you ask me, I think cigarettes should be illegal.

You appear to be arguing that "leftists" are being hypocritical for not calling for a ban on smoking. Well, you are probably right?

But does this mean they are wrong on covid? If so, please explain why.

Destroying the economy is not a cure for covid, no matter what leftist democrat morons think to the contrary.

 

[marke]

So, the kung flu virus can alter our DNA, but the "vaccine" derived from it can't?

Don't try to reason with turnips who only believe what other turnips tell them.

 

[way 2 go]

What, exactly are you saying here? I cannot figure out your basic point.

The restrictions make perfect sense to me. 600,000 Americans are dead! That is 3,000 crashed airliners!

in a plandemic you shut down economies.
2019 leading causes of death Heart disease: 659,041 , Cancer: 599,601

God knows how high the bodies would be stacked if there were no restrictions. As usual, you guys intentionally frame this issue in misleading ways. Yes, the economy has been hurt. But were the restrictions imposed for no reason?

you mean had NY Mi Ont. etc governments taken Florida's approach and protected care homes how much lower the death rate would be

Of course not. You talk about the harm to the economy but, of course, remain conveniently tight-lipped on what would likely have happened in the absence of such restrictions.

You guys make your living out of distortion.

liar

there are and we have given you examples of what it looks like without restrictions



CDC study: 70 percent of covid infected patients reported ‘always’ wearing a mask

 

[expos4ever]

The connection between Trump and Russians has been taken by some to mean collusion. But, even though there was scant evidence of collusion democrats instigated multiple investigations costing tens of millions of dollars and wasting several years trying, but failing, to prove the allegation was true.

A hundred million Americans have been made aware that Fauci funded research at the Wuhan lab during the time the lab was developing the coronavirus. Credible allegations have been made that Fauci knew what the lab was doing when he funded them. But democrats do not want anyone investigating that allegation, they do not want any money spent to research that connection, they do not want a single day devoted to getting at the truth in that situation. If there is someone who cannot see the clear democrat bias and dishonesty in the cover-up in this case then that person is a moron.

Trump and the Russians: irrelevant, we are not talking about Trump and the Russians

You need to account for your statements. For the umpteenth time:

What credible allegations have been made that Fauci knew what the lab was doing when he funded them?