dChan
Anonymous ID: f5b4ad Aug. 31, 2020, 4:22 p.m. No.10487498   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7525

>>10487444

>The thing is, what that CDC page does is simply represent a tally of what people who filled out the forms put on those forms.

 

>It's not at all a measurement of what people died from. It's a measurement of what people put on the forms of 160K dead people.

 

True. Did those professionals have a financial incentive to do so? Could they have been pressured by management to do so for financial gain by the institution they worked for?

 

How many died 'from COVID' versus how many died 'with COVID'?

 

Could counts be inflated for monetary gain?

Anonymous ID: f5b4ad Aug. 31, 2020, 4:33 p.m. No.10487600   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7606 >>7622 >>7635 >>7664 >>7694 >>7960

>>10487495

Those without co-morbid conditions have been quarantined, harassed, locked down, driven to close businesses, and isolated. Do you think people without co-morbid conditions should be treated this way?

 

People with a median age of 80 can die from the common cold, especially vulnerable ones with co-morbid conditions. That's what happened here.

 

But should the rest of the population be treated the same as the most vulnerable?

 

Locking down the retirement, convalescent, and 'old age' environments might have saved 43%, yet the rest were locked down over what?

 

The common cold with a 99%+ survivability?

 

That's why the 6% or <10,000 deaths come into play. Why shut down the economy and hurt hundreds of millions of healthy people?

Anonymous ID: f5b4ad Aug. 31, 2020, 4:41 p.m. No.10487668   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>10487525

I don't think that there are only two sides. I did not intend to create that impression.

 

If not 6%, what number do you believe is more appropriate?

 

The number of people dying 'with COVID' has been lumped in with the number that died 'of COVID'. As you say, we've known since March.

 

So, how many people died 'of COVID' to justify the lockdown? More than in other years? How many?