Elon Musk said that it was a huge mistake to impose sweeping lockdowns

[Fusel 1,111]

We love treating weaker and less healthy people as second class citizens 😍🥰

[PartySick 172,545]

6 hours ago, Ryusei said:

What makes him think this?

Right? "Not at risk for covid"?

It's been shown to damage the lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, and brain. I guess he and his kids don't have those

5 hours ago, TEANUS said:

well...cases were down and then reopenings happen, we have little to no herd immunity, so bam, the cases skyrocket again

Herd immunity is impossible for coronavirus  you can get reinfected with it which means getting infected in the first place and having antibodies doesn't prevent you from continually catching and passing it on.

[britneygaga99 359]

A capitalist is willing to endanger the lives of the workers for his own profit. 
Who would have thought?

[Economy 52,854]

6 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Since when is a +6% mortality rate “low”?????

We locked down here in the US (sorta, barely tbh) and still have over 200,000 dead what the f*ck....

The mortality rate is not even close to that tho. Even tho it's high and dangerous let's not exagerate

 

We don't actually know the true mortality rate. Estimates vary wildly but it's definitely not 6%

 

 

[Musicisfreedom 5,837]

I wish Grimes would dump him

[mister max 18,480]

7 hours ago, Ryusei said:

What makes him think this?

I thought he meant that he won't be taking it at first, and let people who actually need it, get it first

[Shadow 6,697]

6 hours ago, Florin said:

Imperial College London was wrong time and time again. 

Your evidence is basically just an act of mathematical imagination and ignores all the countries who didnt lockdowned or the costs of lockdowns.

I understand your point about hospitals. That's why I understood the lockdowns at the beginning, but I dont know if there is any country on Earth who doesnt control it at the moment from this point of view.

The data from Imperial College London is based on models, assumptions and statistics used to find parameters of infectious diseases to find growth patterns.  The model they used had data from 11 European countries, so it was more focusing on a specific number of cases rather than ignoring the ones that didn't lockdown.  Since Covid-19 is a novel virus, it can be harder to predict and I'm aware of the flaws pointed out by the Heritage Foundation. 

There was another peer reviewed study published on the journal, Nature, by a UC Berkeley research team, "found that travel restrictions, business and school closures, shelter-in-place orders and other non-pharmaceutical interventions averted roughly 530 million COVID-19 infections across the six countries in the study period ending April 6. Of these infections, 62 million would likely have been “confirmed cases,” given limited testing in each country."  https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/06/08/emergency-covid-19-measures-prevented-more-than-500-million-infections-study-finds/ 

Here is a professor from Berkeley who claims China's strict polices prevented 37 million cases of infection.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1193961.shtml

Think about the effect we're trying to achieve with the lockdowns, stay at home orders, self quarantine, face masks, and social distancing. All these non-pharmaceutical interventions are designed to slow the spread of the virus.  It was all about slowing the spread so we can avoid overloading the hospitals and clinics like they were in 1918 and in New York earlier this year which is a problem I'm glad you understand.  

 

[Pharamon 6,839]

Grimes, why are you with this...scumbag

[TheBannedShadow 3,424]

7 hours ago, Florin said:

 "Hey kids, let's lock away the entire population for a virus that doednt affect kids and healthy people under 60" 

Hey I am ‘Frontlineworker’ and I can confirm that it can also affect ‘healthy’ people under 60. For example my 36 old co worker who ended up on the icu for 3 weeks and is stil the hospital in week 8. He was in great shape before covid hit him, no diseases etc.

keep your wrong opinions to yourself, thanks!

[MJHolland 12,725]

37 minutes ago, Economy said:

The mortality rate is not even close to that tho. Even tho it's high and dangerous let's not exagerate

 

We don't actually know the true mortality rate. Estimates vary wildly but it's definitely not 6%

 

 

I guess I don't know the exact mortality rate, but I can't imagine 6% is way off considering there a lot of deaths probably aren't even recorded. And if you have any pre-existing comorbidities, that rate skyrockets. 

This Johns Hopkins page seemingly has a lot of good data — lots of countries are below 6% and a lot of way over 6%

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

But it also depends on the population age. For example, I just found out today that more that half of India's population is under 25 years of age (I was SHOOK to learn) and that's why their death rate isn't super high (also they had very strict lockdowns). 

Regardless, yeah, this is obviously a virus with a mortality rate that can't be ignored. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Jesus christ I can't be in this thread anymore. Covid deniers/downplayers are the scum of the goddam Earth I'm so sorry but you're literally going to kill people. 

[pedrohemg 7,802]

He's right. 

[Economy 52,854]

13 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I guess I don't know the exact mortality rate, but I can't imagine 6% is way off considering there a lot of deaths probably aren't even recorded. And if you have any pre-existing comorbidities, that rate skyrockets. 

This Johns Hopkins page seemingly has a lot of good data — lots of countries are below 6% and a lot of way over 6%

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

But it also depends on the population age. For example, I just found out today that more that half of India's population is under 25 years of age (I was SHOOK to learn) and that's why their death rate isn't super high (also they had very strict lockdowns). 

Regardless, yeah, this is obviously a virus with a mortality rate that can't be ignored. 

There might be a few missed. But considering mild cases or asymptomatic cases are WAY more likely to be missed than severe ones, the undercount for cases would be far greater than the undercount for deaths which means the real death rate is far lower than official figures show

 

Also it depends how they are presented too. Often the figures are only calculated from "resolved" cases so there's always more active cases than the ones used to calculate so that too I glared the number

 

No one actually knows the real number for sure but the real death rate is probably more like 1%

 

If it was 6% the amount of ppl dead by now would be insane given estimates of how many ppl they believe may have already gotten the virus. We'd be talking like over 1M Americans dead instead of 200K to 300K

 

Edit: I'm shook too. I knew India's population was young but I didn't realize it was that young

 

Also I'm not sure what severity of lockdowns have to do with it. The death rate is still based on the ppl who got infected regardless not the percentage that got infected. 

 

I would see a correlation in some nations where the percentage infected might affect how strained the healthcare system gets but India's healthcare system is already strained. So that young population it probably the main explanation

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, pedrohemg said:

He's right. 

Ew.

Don't people realize that the more hosts this virus has, the higher chance that it will mutate and be WAY worse? That the vaccines we've been developing could become completely useless? 

That's what happen with the Spanish Flu (that killed 50 MILLION PEOPLE!!!!). It lied pretty dormant for a summer but had enough hosts to mutate and came back WAY harder the following winter. And FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE DIED. 

Please, please just have compassion for your fellow humans, let's continue to support each other, and we'll eventually get a vaccine and stamp this thing out over time. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, Economy said:

There might be a few missed. But considering mild cases or asymptomatic cases are WAY more likely to be missed than severe ones, the undercount for cases would be far greater than the undercount for deaths which means the real death rate is far lower than official figures show

 

Also it depends how they are presented too. Often the figures are only calculated from "resolved" cases so there's always more active cases than the ones used to calculate so that too I glared the number

 

No one actually knows the real number for sure but the real death rate is probably more like 1%

 

If it was 6% the amount of ppl dead by now would be insane given estimates of how many ppl they believe may have already gotten the virus. We'd be talking like over 1M Americans dead instead of 200K to 300K

Ummm I would say 1 million people dead worldwide is pretty "insane"......... 

It's literally the 3rd leading cause of death here in the US and probably the world, and it didn't even exist a year ago.... that's pretty "insane" dude....