The non-doctor 'doctor' missed it again:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...s-right-about-covid-19-who-is-wrong-1.8691031
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...s-right-about-covid-19-who-is-wrong-1.8691031
Dr WHO Wrong
- Thread starter apdxyk
- Start date
I like him, finally someone talking sense.
Like Isreal, everyone in the UK and USA would of had it soon, then most will recover and life will go on.
Even with social distancing, you touch the counter in the shop, someone else does after and it'll pass that easily.
0.45% his death estimate, so close to my 0.35% I've gotten from the data!!
Like Isreal, everyone in the UK and USA would of had it soon, then most will recover and life will go on.
Even with social distancing, you touch the counter in the shop, someone else does after and it'll pass that easily.
0.45% his death estimate, so close to my 0.35% I've gotten from the data!!
Thank you. This guy made a lot of sense. Great out of the box thinker.
You are focusing on the death rate again.
Your idea of letting everyone (or at least half the population) get infected, that means 165 million infected, 500,000 dead (0.3%)
But how many of those 165 million will need hospital treatment?
My guess 10 million. And then out of those 10 million who get treatment 500,000 will die.
Even if its 5 million or 2 million, or 1 million requiring treatment it is still way too many. How many ventilators are there in the whole of the US?
No way the system can cope with that many people requiring treatment. So there will be a lot more than 500,000 bodies to burn.
Let us hope lock downs and the warm weather slow this thing down, and by some kind of miracle we get a vaccine before next winter.
Last edited:
For starters there lying about the death rate by a factor of 10 to create fear and panic does this not ring alarm bells?
Yes 500k if you do nothing at all.
But if you get the worst effected group 2% 3mil to self isolate, then you start releasing them in stages lowest risk first to let health service cope incase it resurges, after everyones had it + 14days so 3months.
It's a lot easier to lock down 2% of mainly none workers than 99%, the economy doesn't go bankrupt, things get made and nobody starves no body goes without medicine which means 1mil people wont won trying to save 500k.
Current method lockdowns 200k +1mil from the effects of lockdown.
Above logic 20k + near ZERO from effect so 1.18mil lives saved.
Why is the government trying to kill 1.2 million people, run world in depression, cost millions of jobs, intentional or just scared and stupid?
Trump isn't he's just being dragged along for the ride sadly.
Very high risk groups will have already been self isolating themselves.
The UK has 4000 cases and hospitals in London are already at breaking point and doctors are catching it from patients now. And non corona virus patients on regular hospital wards are catching it too.
Thats with just 4000 cases. Whats going to happen when it hits 40,000 cases or 400,000, 4 million cases in the UK.
Seems china had the right idea, round up anyone who has it and isolate them off to designated hospitals. Put 100s of millions on lock down quickly and stop them leaving the house..
Last edited:
So what your telling me is what there currently doing isnt working and screwing up the world , yes lets keep doing that then maybe when it gets hot the heat will kill it, although isreal is hotter than the uk summer currently but we'll ignore that.
If the 2% had self isolated weeks ago, then it wouldn't be so bad, better for them to do it know, we all dont need to self isolate.
Lad i gave directions to Friday to a chemist was 20miles, he'd been to 30 chemists trying to find medicine for his mom, already, this outside of virus patients is looking uglyz worse than the virus ugly.
There are about 70 million people in the US over the age of 60. That would be 20%
So who is this 2% you are referring too.
The old and already sick? Do you think that group hasn't already been self isolating over the last month?
Last edited:
Okay first 70+ not 60+, although any age with health mainly lung related illness.
If we said 10%, better to lock down 10% well, then 99% badly, with all the crap it's causing.
This is just a random recent picture from the UK or Italy, those two guys in black, look relatively young, so could have some underlying health problem, or perhaps not. Would they have self locked down if 90% of the rest of the population were free to come and go. And even if they did, you can bet someone from the 90% would have infected them anyway as they dont look high risk.
Last edited: