According to the associated press, the Covid pandemic has tied a “grim milestones“: The death toll is even with that of the 1918 Spanish influenza:
The delta-fueled surge in new infections may have peaked, but U.S. deaths still are running at over 1,900 a day on average, the highest level since early March, and the country’s overall toll stood at close to 674,000 as of Monday morning, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University, though the real number is believed to be higher.
Of course, if you are remotely numerate, you know the lede that got buried – in this case, down in paragraph seven:
The 1918-19 influenza pandemic killed an estimated 675,000 Americans in a U.S. population one-third the size of what it is today. It struck down 50 million victims globally at a time when the world had one-quarter as many people as it does now. Global deaths from COVID-19 now stand at more than 4.6 million.
But watching social media this past few days, it’s pretty clear – they’re not aiming the story at people with math or critical thinking skills.
The swine flu killed primarily the young and otherwise healthy.
That is not the case with covid, which tends to kill the aged and infirm. Of the 675,000 who have died from covid, half have been older than 74 years of age: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge
Ah, this explains why the south border is so open. Need to get more unvax’d who might also carrying any diseases that used to be eradicated here. If we all work together, we can get to 2M and beat that Spanish flu record for realzies. Get that vax, we need a new mutation.
MBerg wrote: “But watching social media this past few days, it’s pretty clear – they’re not aiming the story at people with math or critical thinking skills.”
Have you considered not reading Twitter while you’re distracted?
A buddy is a long time reader but doesn’t comment. He asks:
What is that the right word for this analysis?
The Covid ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine in the traditional sense. It is a product which confers no protection from infection, no protection from consequences of infection, does not prevent spreading the infection to others, but the manufacturer is fully insulated from all liability.
Would you trust a condom made by the same people who make the not-vaccine?
Would you trust a seatbelt made by the same people who make the not-vaccine?
Would you use toilet paper made to the same standards as the not-vaccine?
Would you use a padlock made to the same standards as the not-vaccine?
What’s the right word for this line of reasoning – analogy, litotes, sarcasm, simile, synecdoche, stupidity or is it just plain idiocy?
My brother-in-law died two weeks ago. He went into the hospital with “COVID pneumonia”. The hospital managed to get his lungs clear of that in about a week, but then he picked up a secondary infection that the hospital couldn’t identify or trace at first. As he kept losing ground against the infection and the hospital’s standard treatments, the family begged them to try something more “experimental”. The response: “We’re the experts here.”
Turns out that the secondary infection came from the breathing tube they’d “expertly” inserted into him. He spent the last two weeks of his life in a medically induced coma and because of COVID, no one could get in to see him. Horrific. I haven’t seen the death certificate, but if it says “COVID” and not “Hospital Expertise” as cause of death, there’s going to be fireworks.
More holes in the Ivermectin story: multiple studies that “contain impossible numbers in their results”, the 2 most positive studies have been withdrawn and more to come, need for individual patient data.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y
Phew! Good thing that Ivermectin doesn’t work. That’s a relief, eh, little guy?
Btw, should we jail those doctors that employ it or just shoot them on the spot?
I’m curious to know your position on suicide, E. We know from the abortion debate that individuals have the right to decide whether and when to begin life.
Should individuals also have the right to decide when to end their own lives? Or does the government have an overweening interest in keeping people alive despite their wishes?
Yes, this is a lead-up to asking more questions.
If the government’s interest in keeping people alive is more important than the people’s interest in staying alive, does that give the government power to:
-chose your medical treatment
-chose your exercise regimen
-chose your grocery list
-chose your recreation and entertainment options
Does it also give the government the power to punish people who fail to obey the government’s orders by
-witholding medical treatment
-rationing items on your grocery list
-forbidding you to take outdoor recreation or entertainment
In fact, are there ANY limits to the government’s power over you, if they first say the magic word “Covid?”
Geez, JD, nothing like an offer to discuss things to shut the little guy up.
You’re right, jdm. But the Emery Collective is not the only reader at SITD. There are lots of readers who don’t comment and for them, maybe vaccine hesitancy is a real thing. Some thought experiments may help them clarify their thinking.
If the seat belt company warned us that seat belts would fail in a crash and the company was absolutely not liable for your injuries, would you still support mandatory seat belt laws? Why? What’s the point? It’s just government overreach that provides no benefit to individuals or to society.
Similarly, if the vaccine company . . . .
Similarly, if the vaccine company…
Oh, JD… that would never happen.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 09.24.21 : The Other McCain