Topic: [POLL] Shutting down the Global Economy to fight covid a good idea? (Read 394 times)

You seemed to have missed the important part. But I should have added, "... the way they want."


Health care includes all kinds of things that don't require doctors and medicine. Simple hygiene is one of the greatest health care moves that saves and extends peoples' lives. You don't need a doctor to set a simple bone fracture.

Most of modern drug usage on patients is simply a method of slowly poisoning them. That's the reason for so many deaths in hospitals with major diseases.

When you mix good hygiene with poison, and call the whole thing health care, you are misleading the people into their own deaths, mostly sooner.

As far as your example of the person, we don't know what would have happened if the child had not been treated. You can't try it both ways to see what might happen the other way. The child might easily have lived without treatment, or with non-medical treatment, and might still be alive at 110.


LOL. Just ask all those people who died from the Covid in the hospital, or the vaxx anywhere, if the medical knows what it is doing. Many lay people have figured out that they do, and that the deaths are intentional.



Again, health care regarding infant mortality that saves lives is different than medicine health care. Health care being used by the doctors of 100 years ago, was much different than the health care being used today. Simple hygienic and mechanical health care is something that can be taught to mid-wives or anybody; often it involves simple common sense. But that is what saves babies; not something that requires years of schooling and medical experience as things are today in modern medicine, and, of course, all kinds of medicine poisons.

Who is going to tell you when a modern technique kills the baby? Certainly not the doctor. He may not even realize that's what it was. His report might be lies, because he did his best, even though the baby might still be alive if he hadn't done anything.

You can't do it over a different way once you have done it it one way.

You could just visit the page to view the source, or even look at the 'Our World in Data' logo on the chart, to get some idea.
Here's where the chart is from: http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/life-expectancy/
There's a section at the bottom of that page detailing the data sources. Knock yourself out.*



People have to die from something. More people dying from things like cancer and heart disease is partly a consequence of people living longer, due to better healthcare following the rise of modern medicine. Your argument is essentially: "Modern medicine prevented this person from dying at 5yo from a preventable childhood disease, but instead they died at 90yo from cancer. Therefore medicine is useless".






* But beforehand, please arrange to be brought back to consciousness by a medical professional (who knows what they're doing) rather than a priest (who doesn't).

---

Edit, second reply:


It's quite amusing that just in the space of a couple of sentences, you suggest that I don't understand what life expectancy means, and then proceed to wildly misunderstand it. You're not stupid, so I assume you're simply being disingenuous. A life expectancy of, for example, 40, certainly does not suggest that a large number of people die at age 40, as I'm sure you know. It also doesn't say very much about the chances of someone who is 70 being able to survive to the age of 80. The biggest factor, historically, has been infant mortality. If you are genuinely arguing that modern medicine has not reduced infant mortality, and that average lifespan has not increased, even in the face of the data, then you may as well go back to reading the bible with BADecker, because I'm not going to be able to shake your faith with something as mundane as evidence.

The third option is to 'believe in medicine' which provided by people who consider themselves Gods.  Good luck with that, because you are going to need it.

---

As for 'life expectancy', which probably doesn't mean what you think it does, I noticed that the BS 'data' you got seems start at around the time of the 'birth of the nation' of the U.S..  A cursory glance at the lifespans of the various 'founding fathers' shows numbers which are in the ball-park of what one could expect today(*).  Franklin: 84, Adams: 90, Jefferson: 83, Sherman: 72, etc.  It's a miracle I guess.

(*) Or up to pre-2021 when 'SADS' (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) popped onto the scene and mystified all of the so-called 'medical professionals' who have no idea what might be going on...except that it could be because of 'climate change'.

In areas where things can't be double checked easily, Wikipedia allows whatever they personally want to. Anybody can draw graphs and charts.

Even if the graphs and charts are reasonably accurate as far as they go, there are loads of things that are never taken into account that could affect whatever is being charted or graphed. In other words, the graphs and charts are essentially useless, but probably entirely misleading.

Besides, authorities like the CDC have doctors right inside their organization who don't agree with the official rendering. And that is to say nothing about the thousands of medical people from around the world who show that the CDC is wrong.



EDIT: You are kinda dense, aren't you? Don't you realize that 600,000 people under medical care die from cancer each year? And it's similar for heart disease. And it's like 350,000 for diabetes. All these are under medical care.

Modern medicine should dissolve and go home. People might have a chance at living if they did.

Well, let's look at the data. Let's compare change in life expectancy over time, and the effect of modern medicine.
Hmm, that's weird, it looks like you're talking nonsense. Or maybe it was just a typo, and you actually meant: People should believe in medicine, not God.
Vaccines, antibiotics etc save lives. Waving your arms at the sky and imploring it to help you, doesn't*.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy





* I mean, if you're sufficiently energetic about it, then the arm waving thing may burn some calories, and help with weight loss, so there's that.

Good idea, because...

The people are so ignorant about how 90% of the medical is a big scam, that they need to get what they deserve for not checking things out ahead.

Besides, killing off 50% of the people like the vaxx will do, will leave things open for the rest of us who are smarter.

I mean, people should believe in God, not medicine. All those unbelievers who will not turn to God will get the economy they deserve... at least until then start to see that God is right. Of course, most of them woll be dead by then. I mean, this is exactly what happened to the Old Testament people who believed in man more than they believed in God.

Well, thanks for responding. I've asked this question many times over the last few years, and I think this is the first time anyone has tried to answer it.
But I don't agree. There are plenty of countries with large populations, where the elites are in absolute control, with no threat to them whatsoever from these large populations. You can take China as an example, or the US, even Russia. The people at the top exploit everyone else, and have done for a very long time. The entire system, everywhere, whether capitalism or (nominal) communism or the Chinese special mixture of the two, or anything else... is set up to benefit these people. And levels of inequality in most places are increasing all the time. The system is working as intended, and those at the top are reaping the rewards. If the masses are controlled perfectly, or as perfectly as necessary, then the people at the top have zero incentive to change anything, as this would worsen their own position.

Never a good idea, because the affect 9f economic crash caused more life than the virus but we can't find the official records for this anywhere and also the life of people changed completely now the situation is more worse eith high interest rate and high taxes and also high inflation flames the things further.

diminishing returns, easier to control a smaller population than unruly masses. of course smaller and masses are subjective.

One thing I've never really understood with this particular insane conspiracy theory is just why the people who are already in control would want to reduce the number of ordinary people they can exploit. It's like a pharaoh or a plantation owner complaining that he has too many slaves.

I won't deny that much of the world (and certainly my own country) is ruled by an effectively closed club of people, who exploit the remainder of the population... but why would they want fewer people to exploit? If your source of wealth is the people you exploit, why would you want to diminish that? The ruler of a large kingdom is more important and powerful than the ruler of a small kingdom.

Most people who actually matter can see this and have seen the mountains of evidence of multiple kinds already.  Painful as it may be for me to admit it, I'm sort of at the point where I don't really have much desire to  'convince' those who cannot/will-not see it by now of much of anything.  This mainly because as a group they are the ballast that makes the euthanization program possible.

If you are brainwashed enough to think that blood clots, autoimmune disease, AIDS, 'SADS', and infertility are a 'social responsibility' that you feel motivated to sacrifice for than 'God bless, move forward.'  The good-old-boys club of eugenicists with seats on the boards of directors of the transnational pharma companies (who've already pocketed the money which was supposed to be your support in old age) will have a good chuckle over your grave.

If you make a ridiculous claim, without any evidence to support it, then it's unlikely that people will believe you. Please gather some evidence.

I do, of course, understand that any evidence that you may present will be carefully selected and divested of context in order to further a narrative that is at odds with reality, so here's a cherry-picker to assist you in your efforts. I've made the image quite small, because I'm not expecting you to gather much.

e.g., the 'vaccinated' who now have a form of AIDS which makes them more vulnerable to everything.

I'm not sure where you get the '1% effective' data from, please could you provide a link? And I'd add that no-one has suggested that the vaccine becomes fully effective within a week, anyway. Data on vaccine efficacy can be found from many reputable sources, here's one example: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiveness

The vaccines are safe and effective. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt about this anymore.


Contracting the virus does confer a strong immune response, yes. But the point of the vaccines is that you get the immunity without having to catch the virus. Given that contracting the virus comes with a decent percentage chance of serious illness, long-term health effects, or even death... I'd argue that taking the vaccine is the more prudent approach.

Even if you're young and healthy, and in a very low-risk group, it's still better to take the vaccine rather than contracting the virus and potentially passing it on to more vulnerable people. This is why vaccination against a contagious disease is more a social responsibility issue than an individual liberty issue.

I don't believe that going about lives normally and warning people there was a bad strain of flu going around would have been a childish way to address the issue.  Quite the opposite actually.  Now that we've seen the inflationary result of our actions, the uselessness of the vaccine (1% effective after 1 week), and how lockdowns simply didn't work (the countries that did nothing recovered fastest), it is shocking to me that anyone could come to the conclusion that we did the right thing.  Especially when it's been acknowledged by Bill Gates himself that contracting the virus naturally led to a stronger immune resistance going forward.  I stand by my decision to do nothing and end up with the strongest immunity possible.

Governments overreacted and showed that they have no idea what to do in case of emergency. There was actually very little deaths compared to the measures they took to prevent them like full lockdowns in China where people were starving and couldn't go out to get food, despite being healthy. They were blindly putting people in house arrests when a few sick popped out in the area.
All countries that did these lockdowns are now suffering from first signs of stagflation. On top of that we got that idiot Putin murdering people and destroying food to starve Ukraine. He couldn't have chosen a worse moment.

We're a human that need foods to survive, though we can fasting for few days, but it's not good for your health.

If global economy will shut down, many people doesn't have money and can't feed their themself.

Which cases are more dangerous? suffered from starving or covid?

You need to understand what a comorbidity is. Look it up. It's not surprising that people with a pre-existing condition are more susceptible to death from Covid, and no-one would challenge that. But look at excess death figures (from any reason). There wasn't a sudden pandemic of cancer, heart disease etc that just happened to occur at the exact same time as the Covid outbreak.

^{[CITATION NEEDED]} (a proper citation, not freedomphoenix/freethekraken/freethedragon/whatever)

The reason why shutting down the global economy to fight Covid is a good thing, doesn't have anything to do with Covid, the disease.

In the first year of Covid, 2020, in the US, of the, say, 500,000 people that supposedly died from Covid, 94% really died from comorbidities. Look it up. They were mostly people that had some disease like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, other terminal disease, who really died from doctors treating them in the wrong way, because they were4 (are still) ignorant about Covid.

And the 6% that didn't have one of these comorbid diseases, died from the doctors treating them the wrong way as well.

Presently, most of the Covid deaths by far are from vaxx induced Covid... which, btw, the doctors still are treating the wrong way.

But here is the reason why shutting down the global economy is good, especially in the States. It's because the people still believe and trust the doctors! The people haven't waked up. So, if we get the economy to shut down, the doctors will be out of business, because the patients will all die from starvation if nothing else.

It seems to be the only way to get rid of the corrupt medical.

I would go with yes, it was a good idea. Or I should say it was the best idea we had at the moment when combating something we haven't come across since WWI (pandemic). Leaving everything as is and pretending this was just a "flu" is a childish way of adressing an issue. Was it the best solution. Probably not, but we can learn from it an come up with better solutions in the future. It sure beats the alternative, bury our heads in the sand just because we don't wan't our way of life disrupted. And I wouldn't say that the full economy was shut down, that's just false and not true.

A more adequate question:

Was the deployment of 'covid' as implemented the best method of shutting down the global economy and facilitating follow-on 'great reset' objectives?

I voted no, in hindsight I feel it's safe to say it was a terrible idea. Unless you like the supply snafu and shortages..

if we really shut down the global economy there will be many problems that will arise, which will have an impact on those of the lower middle class ... it's better to leave it like this,, the economy is running as usual and activities can run like there is no covid

Not at all Complete Shut down destroyed the Middle and Poor Class Counties and now inflation is all-time High and we are bearing it in my own country people are Struggling for the 2 Time Meal.



Yes. Obviously, there were many other options as well but they choose to Destroy us.


At this point, I think temporary Safty is the reason for which I'm going to pay for the next 5 years.


Not at all COVID-19 gave a lesson that whatever progress you will do to stand against the Nature a small slap of nature in the form of any disease you cant survive (Where was all the technology for 2 years).


Not Sure...

That amount is huge and its sad to also here that its still not enough to cover up for the Covid-19 vaccines. But if the world economy should shut down just for the fight of this highly deadly virus it should please shut down, because of what benefit will be it if human being shut down instead of the economy. who will the economy be for then. because  i still haven't forgotten what i passed through in 2020 during the lockdown period here. it was a total mess and i hope not to see that again. So if am to choose between economy and the human race, i rather go for human race.
But i pray such never happens in my generation.

Well, of course it's a good idea... for those who want to reduce the population and take over the world. Here is what they are finding in the blood clots of the people who have died from taking the vaxx.

Note that I have suggested long ago that if we could get nano-machines into the body, tiny machines that could flow together and become RF devices, we might be able to take over the bodies of people that had these devices in them.

Loads of microscope magnified pictures in the article.


EXCLUSIVE: Shocking microscopy photos of blood clots extracted from those who “suddenly died” – crystalline structures, nanowires, chalky particles and fibrous structures

I'm not sure where the 1% effective data comes from, please can you provide a source? Everything I've found suggests it is hugely effective.

As for whether governments could have handled this better, certainly. In my own country (the UK), it was perfectly evident as soon as outbreaks started in Italy and Spain that it would make its way over here. The biggest mistake the government made was to keep the borders open too long... if you wait until something is a problem, then it's too late to achieve the best outcome. You need to close borders beforehand. That way the internal economy at least can continue.


https://xkcd.com/2278/

If we can shut down the global economy, the medical will go along with it... because nobody can afford it as it is.

Then we won't have any more Covid problems, because Covid is so weak that it can be cured with Ivermectin, vitamin C + zinc, and vitamin D... all ver the counter stuff that isn't dangerous like the vaxx.

No. Anyone who was already infected with the virus should have been free to live their lives. Even if they weren't infected -- risk remained low for the vast majority of people. Doesn't warrant the government forcing you to stay within your home.


Like monkeypox? CDC are already recommending masking for a disease that primarily effects homosexual men having close sexual contact. Wearing a mask during sex might be their next recommendation.


Nope. The amount of deaths related to reduced economic activity (depression driven suicides, famines, etc.) outpace the deaths related to COVID.


Probably not, but possibly. The gun grabbing is a simple issue. Use dead children, drag their lifeless and still warm bodies across the stage and fully display them for the world to see. Then, use emotional appeal to call any gun supporters heartless bigots who enjoy seeing children get slaughtered. And this has world-wide appeal, in fact. Canada has announced gun restrictions for a shooting that happened in the U.S., not even within their borders. It's not part of a larger conspiracy theory, just people that don't understand gun-death related statistics and find guns to be scary.

It depends on how we look at it OG, at the time it looked like a good idea, you know the outbreak was severe at the beginning with millions of cases in a short time, so why i said it looked like a good idea at the time is that governments needed time to decide on the action to take, and to stop the spread while they dialogue on what to do, they had to impose lockdowns.

The government knew the action will lead to inflation, but lockdown was something they had to impose then, and worry about what will come later. Are we better off now as a result of those policies? I do not think so, in hindsight the negative effects of lockdowns seem extremely worse than what was being avoided. If i think we should handle virus outbreaks in the future similarly, i would say no to that, the government ought to be more proactive next time, policies that will turn out to be more of a "hinderance than a help" should not be made.

Now that economies are opening back up and trying to return to normal with insane inflation levels, the vaccine was found to be 1% effective, the latest variant found to be non-lethal with a stronger immune response than the vaccine, and the bill for all of this is in at around $12,500,000,000,000, was shutting down the global economy to fight the flu a good idea?  Do you feel like you were safer as a result of the policies put in place?  Do you think this is how we should handle virus outbreaks in the future?  Do you think we are better off as a species now as a result of these actions?  Do you think the government's inability to get everyone vaccinated is part of the reason behind this push to destroy the second amendment?