Watch while you can.
Watch while you can.
Herd immunity ?!? We should go ahead and kill 2 or 3 million Americans. Then we will say that they would have died anyway, in the next year ?! Ask Herman Cain's family ?
Listen to the video. The profs are encouraging a "hide grandma" approach. If you really believe that covid would kill 2-3 million people you are woefully delusional. The profs are advocating for a more humane public health policy that addresses the dreadful effects of the lockdown on the young and healthy.
Concerned Senior wrote:
Herd immunity ?!? We should go ahead and kill 2 or 3 million Americans. Then we will say that they would have died anyway, in the next year ?! Ask Herman Cain's family ?
Do you people ever have an original thought. That's the meme that has been sent down from the Covid Cultmasters and all you parrots just repeat the handful of memes until they are fully disproved and then you move on to the next half dozen slogans that the Lie Machine concocts.
Darwin 12 wrote:
Listen to the video. The profs are encouraging a "hide grandma" approach. If you really believe that covid would kill 2-3 million people you are woefully delusional. The profs are advocating for a more humane public health policy that addresses the dreadful effects of the lockdown on the young and healthy.
This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.
Harambe wrote:
Darwin 12 wrote:
Listen to the video. The profs are encouraging a "hide grandma" approach. If you really believe that covid would kill 2-3 million people you are woefully delusional. The profs are advocating for a more humane public health policy that addresses the dreadful effects of the lockdown on the young and healthy.
This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.
Right. It didn't work in NYC nursing homes either.
Harambe wrote:
Darwin 12 wrote:
Listen to the video. The profs are encouraging a "hide grandma" approach. If you really believe that covid would kill 2-3 million people you are woefully delusional. The profs are advocating for a more humane public health policy that addresses the dreadful effects of the lockdown on the young and healthy.
This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.
Thank God we have Harambe hear to tell us what 3 top scientists from the 3 most respected universities in the Western world are wrong about. Now we don't have to waste our time watching the video and assessing the information for ourselves.
Concerned Senior wrote:
Herd immunity ?!? We should go ahead and kill 2 or 3 million Americans. Then we will say that they would have died anyway, in the next year ?! Ask Herman Cain's family ?
It's probably more like 600k, far less if the elderly can be sheltered effectively.
Harambe wrote:
Darwin 12 wrote:
Listen to the video. The profs are encouraging a "hide grandma" approach. If you really believe that covid would kill 2-3 million people you are woefully delusional. The profs are advocating for a more humane public health policy that addresses the dreadful effects of the lockdown on the young and healthy.
This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.
So...it's not possible to isolate the vulnerable but it is possible to isolate the entirety of society?
Hysteria Central wrote:
Harambe wrote:
This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.
Thank God we have Harambe hear to tell us what 3 top scientists from the 3 most respected universities in the Western world are wrong about. Now we don't have to waste our time watching the video and assessing the information for ourselves.
People have tried it and failed. Do you have any evidence of a policy like this actually working? I don't really care what 3 people think -- we have seen many different approaches to COVID control already. These guys are still theory-posting about ideas people discarded 6 months ago, it's a little embarrassing but it gets them onto FOX News or whatever.
Let everyone else run around and get infected. Keep old people completely isolated. I don't think society functions the way you think it does.
Life sucks, get covid wrote:
Concerned Senior wrote:
Herd immunity ?!? We should go ahead and kill 2 or 3 million Americans. Then we will say that they would have died anyway, in the next year ?! Ask Herman Cain's family ?
It's probably more like 600k, far less if the elderly can be sheltered effectively.
Why haven't we sheltered the elderly effectively so far? This was the goal from day 1: protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable.
Life sucks, get covid wrote:
Concerned Senior wrote:
Herd immunity ?!? We should go ahead and kill 2 or 3 million Americans. Then we will say that they would have died anyway, in the next year ?! Ask Herman Cain's family ?
It's probably more like 600k, far less if the elderly can be sheltered effectively.
How? How do we isolate the most vulnerable to COVID? These are the people who normally need someone to look after them.
And also, how do we know who's vulnerable? "Underlying condition" is a euphemism for... 'we don't really know why but don't want the public to panic'
Life sucks, get covid wrote:
Harambe wrote:
This isn't feasible though. Nobody has successfully "isolated the vulnerable." It doesn't work. Sweden tried it and still had COVID run rampant through elderly care facilities.
So...it's not possible to isolate the vulnerable but it is possible to isolate the entirety of society?
Uh.... I can't tell if you're trying to troll or are just stupid. I'll assume the former.
Targeted measures haven't worked. You can't keep the groups separate. I have not seen one example of this protocol working at all.
Everything proposed by these herd immunity dudes is already being done, for the most part.
Their proposal is thus: 1) keep protections on the vulnerable the same and 2) let younger people go about their lives and get infected
Logically, this will only lead to more cases among the vulnerable. I haven't seen a single policy proposal from these people that is actually novel.
Harambe wrote:
Life sucks, get covid wrote:
It's probably more like 600k, far less if the elderly can be sheltered effectively.
Why haven't we sheltered the elderly effectively so far? This was the goal from day 1: protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable.
because some elderly, like herman cain, know the risks and still to choose to live their lives rather than hide. People can look at the stats, assess their own risk, and proceed accordingly. Just as we do with everything else in life.
Hysteria Central wrote:
Thank God we have Harambe hear to tell us what 3 top scientists from the 3 most respected universities in the Western world are wrong about. Now we don't have to waste our time watching the video and assessing the information for ourselves.
You mean 3 top scientists that have been denounced by the other scientists at their own universities? Yeah, it's those clowns again.
The vulnerable includes nearly half the population. There is no way to isolate them. And the U.S. government is doing nothing to fund ways to protect them. Where's the PPE? Where's the N95 masks for everybody? Where are the quarantine hotels and paid sick leave?
They don't want to protect the vulnerable. They just want them to die and get it over with.
high school xc coach wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Why haven't we sheltered the elderly effectively so far? This was the goal from day 1: protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable.
because some elderly, like herman cain, know the risks and still to choose to live their lives rather than hide. People can look at the stats, assess their own risk, and proceed accordingly. Just as we do with everything else in life.
Most risks are not highly contagious.
There must be a new batch of dumb COVID deniers on LRC. We had all these arguments in March and April and drove the morons off the board.
Welcome to the new crop, I guess....
real info wrote:
Hysteria Central wrote:
Thank God we have Harambe hear to tell us what 3 top scientists from the 3 most respected universities in the Western world are wrong about. Now we don't have to waste our time watching the video and assessing the information for ourselves.
You mean 3 top scientists that have been denounced by the other scientists at their own universities? Yeah, it's those clowns again.
The vulnerable includes nearly half the population. There is no way to isolate them. And the U.S. government is doing nothing to fund ways to protect them. Where's the PPE? Where's the N95 masks for everybody? Where are the quarantine hotels and paid sick leave?
They don't want to protect the vulnerable. They just want them to die and get it over with.
Just curious. Can you cite where the other scientists at their own universities have denounced these individuals? I've seen news outlets dragging them through the mud. But I've regularly seen scientists at both Oxford and Stanford expressing similar views since the start of the pandemic.
Because the risks are not there. If you are under 75 your chances of survival are 99.97%. The bigger question is why people refuse to acknowledge the actual "science"? What are they getting out of keeping people scared, isolated, hungry, and depressed? Of course, for the big players it always leads to money but what about the Harambes and Precious Roys of the world? Why do they vehemently stick to the fear narrative when a common-sense approach is painfully obvious? Do they like the power that is accrued by keeping people scared? Are they so privileged that they can't accept their own death and therefore COVID is a reminder of their own insignificant mortality? Do they feel a sense of moral superiority by pretending that keeping everyone locked up is a more "virtuous" alternative compared to not locking up an entire world? The little COVID warriors barking up a storm at the Allen53s nevermind lead public health officials from top universities. It is an interesting psychological perspective. My own personal opinion is that the Harambees, Precious Roys, Fauci's etc. of the world signify the ultimate in narcissism. An entitlement that stems directly from their own personal fears of not being immortal and not being in control of others. Luckily for Big Pharma, we have a shXX -load of Harambes fighting the "cause" while simultaneously lining the pocketbooks of the corrupt.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
real info wrote:
You mean 3 top scientists that have been denounced by the other scientists at their own universities? Yeah, it's those clowns again.
The vulnerable includes nearly half the population. There is no way to isolate them. And the U.S. government is doing nothing to fund ways to protect them. Where's the PPE? Where's the N95 masks for everybody? Where are the quarantine hotels and paid sick leave?
They don't want to protect the vulnerable. They just want them to die and get it over with.
Just curious. Can you cite where the other scientists at their own universities have denounced these individuals? I've seen news outlets dragging them through the mud. But I've regularly seen scientists at both Oxford and Stanford expressing similar views since the start of the pandemic.
Much of the Stanford Med Faculty came out against these same strategies like a week before this newest attempt to re-paint the same dumb arguments:
https://twitter.com/RoxanaDaneshjou/status/1303904515607855104?s=20