Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1) That is obviously a wildly partisan site that is doing their best to misinterpret data to match their views, or maybe they are just really stupid, I don't know which.

2) When someone dies from an infection (virus or bacteria)  there are of course many things that are going wrong.  Just having the infection is not what kills you, it's how the infection interferes with the proper functioning of major organs.   But if the infection were not the key factor, if someone died (e.g.) from a heart attack and just happened to also have an infection then the overall death rate would NOT go up.  But so far this year there have been 200,000 more deaths than usual.  So to claim that COID-19 is not they key factor in those deaths you have to believe there is a sudden outbreak of heat attacks, and various other cases of organ failures etc, that just happen to coincide with the rise of COID-19, but that the two are unrelated.   Is that really what you think Markinsa?

Edited by EverCurious452
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A good friend of mine's father died of pancreatic cancer a few weeks ago. Guess what the death certificate said. Covid of course. I also know the director of a large hospital here in SOCAL.  Said

Hi EV,   Dinarians do have a problem using numbers.  Worse with facts behind the numbers.   This whole RV thing is the original conspiracy ....   The more unknowns  there are in a situation

Posted Images

1 hour ago, EverCurious452 said:

  Is that really what you think Markinsa?

 

Yes, in part.  However partisan the site may be, there are other non partisan sites on the left that fact checked the assertions.  Plus add the below video report based on. New.York Times report.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 The source is in the video.

 

I don't believe all the hospitals are  fudging their numbers.

Here is the article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html?searchResultPosition=6 for those that would like to read it with out OAN's hysterioncics.

Note "...may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus...".  But this still means they are infected.  Even if their viral load is small enough at the time of the test that they were likely not contagious at the time of the test, that does not mean they were not contagious before (if at the time of the test they are getting over it) or that they will not be contagious in the near future (if they were just exposed soon before the time of the test).   Total cases is not "total cases that are contagious".  It would be very nice to have such a test, but we don't at present.

So this does not seem like any sort of "bombshell" to me, nor does it have anything to do with the total number of deaths.

Edited by EverCurious452
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EverCurious452 said:

So this does not seem like any sort of "bombshell" to me, nor does it have anything to do with the total number of deaths.

 

Same article:

We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.” But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said."

...

"In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so the tests being done do not report the amount of viral load.  It would be very good if they did, but they don't   Yet another indication that the entire testing infrastructure in the US is pretty bad (contrary to the administrations claims).   The length of time it takes to get a result also often greatly reduces their usefulness.  Even it it's true that many or most of the "cases" are not contagious at the time of testing it still shows that the person is infected.  The bottom line still is that the virus is spreading very fast in the US, otherwise the deaths per capita would be much lower.  Cases has always been a fuzzier statistic because it depends on who you test and how accurate the test is.  But when you're dead you're dead.  So this still does not seem to me to be some sort of amazing reveal or bombshell and again has nothing to do with the number of deaths, which is what the conspiracy folks say is wildly over reported, but it's not.  If anything its UNDER reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/5/2020 at 1:06 AM, EverCurious452 said:

Right, so the tests being done do not report the amount of viral load.  It would be very good if they did, but they don't   Yet another indication that the entire testing infrastructure in the US is pretty bad (contrary to the administrations claims).   The length of time it takes to get a result also often greatly reduces their usefulness.  Even it it's true that many or most of the "cases" are not contagious at the time of testing it still shows that the person is infected.  The bottom line still is that the virus is spreading very fast in the US, otherwise the deaths per capita would be much lower.  Cases has always been a fuzzier statistic because it depends on who you test and how accurate the test is.  But when you're dead you're dead.  So this still does not seem to me to be some sort of amazing reveal or bombshell and again has nothing to do with the number of deaths, which is what the conspiracy folks say is wildly over reported, but it's not.  If anything its UNDER reported.

I remember Gavin Newsom telling us that 50,000 californians would die within 3 months. 

My city in SoCal with a population of 20,000 has had 130 confirmed cases and 1 dead.

 

Most deaths are deaths with Covid... Not death by Covid.

And if you test positive more than once each is considered a positive even though its the same case.

I guess we could say George Floyd died from Covid.... He did test positive.

 

Democrats were hoping before Covid that the economy would crash and burn. This was an opportunity for the left.

They don't care about the people. They care about power and they don't care if people suffer to get it.

 

"Never Let A Good Crisis Go to Waste,"  Rahm Emanuel, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SocalDinar said:

Most deaths are deaths with Covid... Not death by Covid.

This is simply wrong SD.  Just look at the total number of deaths from all causes combined on the CDC site per week for the last few years.  There is a big bump of 200,000 or so deaths this year (that follows the infection rise) that has not occurred in other years.  If that is not from COVID, then what?  If these 200,000 excess deaths (as the CDC calls them) were just normal deaths where the person happened to also have COVID then the increase in the total number of deaths would be much much lower.  If say deaths by heart attacks were being labeled as from COVID but really it was just a heart attack, then the number of deaths by heart attacks would appear to go down while COVID deaths go up.  But it's the opposite.  Death by heart attack are ALSO up, in addition to deaths by COVID.  So the COVID deaths may well be an under count.  We don't know at this time.  The extra heart attacks might be (just for example) due to people who usually would go to the ER and be helped but now are afraid to do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, EverCurious452 said:

This is simply wrong SD.  Just look at the total number of deaths from all causes combined on the CDC site per week for the last few years.  There is a big bump of 200,000 or so deaths this year (that follows the infection rise) that has not occurred in other years.  If that is not from COVID, then what?  If these 200,000 excess deaths (as the CDC calls them) were just normal deaths where the person happened to also have COVID then the increase in the total number of deaths would be much much lower.  If say deaths by heart attacks were being labeled as from COVID but really it was just a heart attack, then the number of deaths by heart attacks would appear to go down while COVID deaths go up.  But it's the opposite.  Death by heart attack are ALSO up, in addition to deaths by COVID.  So the COVID deaths may well be an under count.  We don't know at this time.  The extra heart attacks might be (just for example) due to people who usually would go to the ER and be helped but now are afraid to do so.

 

Can you post a link showing this years heart disease statistics.

600,000 die from heart disease every year but cant seem to find this years numbers.

 

It was insane shutting down the country. And worse yet was handing out $600 in additional federal unemployment welfare.

I know quite a few companies including myself that have had a hard time getting employees. Created a group of slackers.

I wont hire anyone of these people back or give any kind of reference at all.

 

I only know one person that has caught covid. Hes 55 overweight high blood pressure and diabetes.

He said it was just like normal Flu.

 

I know several people that work as health care professionals and they ALL say this was a joke.

Just lunacy. S couple of doctors i know tell me their management has pressured them to put down cause of death as Covid when in reality it was other causes.  

 

Cant convince me that this ever warranted a shutdown.  

But on a side note i do work for huge online distributers and have never been this busy.

Last year was our best year ever and we will have an even better year this year with half the employees.

All my employees have gotten substantial raises.  Covid is a win win for us.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SocalDinar said:

Can you post a link showing this years heart disease statistics.

600,000 die from heart disease every year but cant seem to find this years numbers.

I had a great one that shows death from all sorts of cases over the years, but naturally have misplaced the link.  I'll post it later.

Quote

 

It was insane shutting down the country. And worse yet was handing out $600 in additional federal unemployment welfare.

I know quite a few companies including myself that have had a hard time getting employees. Created a group of slackers.

I wont hire anyone of these people back or give any kind of reference at all.

 

Whether it made sense to shut down is a different question.  I agree that we should have handled this very differently.  We should have jumped on the issue when we first knew about in the end of Jan (we saw the same posts the doctors in Wuhan made), and then be setup to test everyone coming in, jump on any outbreak including a local hard lockdown, but then that can lift when the cases go away.  The way we did it was sort of the worst of both worlds.  We did not lock down hard enough to really stop it, but did lock down hard enough to cause huge economic damage.

Quote

 

I only know one person that has caught covid. Hes 55 overweight high blood pressure and diabetes.

He said it was just like normal Flu.

 

Sure.  So what?  its a mistake to attempt to get a handle on even regional let alone national stats via an anecdotal case.

Quote

 

I know several people that work as health care professionals and they ALL say this was a joke.

Just lunacy. S couple of doctors i know tell me their management has pressured them to put down cause of death as Covid when in reality it was other causes.  

 

Again, if that was so then total deaths from all causes (so canceling out any labeling of cause of death)  would be up only slight, but its up by over 200,000.

 

Quote

But on a side note i do work for huge online distributers and have never been this busy.

Last year was our best year ever and we will have an even better year this year with half the employees.

All my employees have gotten substantial raises.  Covid is a win win for us.

Same here,  my company had its best quarter ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coronavirus: COVID Deaths in U.S. by Age, Race

By Alex Berezow, PhD — June 23, 2020

 

While coronavirus is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people (namely, the elderly and immunocompromised), these data also show that the risk for the rest of the population is quite low.

 

Public health officials and the media have been warning us that coronavirus kills not just old or immunocompromised people but young people too. While this is true, it remains relatively uncommon.

 

The CDC has accumulated mortality data about the COVID-19 pandemic from February 1 to June 17. Using this, it is easy to summarize how the disease has impacted Americans differentially based on age and race. Bear in mind, that the CDC's mortality data often lags behind other sources. (For example, the death toll in the United States according to Johns Hopkins is over 120k, but the CDC's most recent data only shows roughly 103k.) Still, this shouldn't impact the age and race analysis.

 

U.S. Coronavirus Deaths by Age

 

Here's the coronavirus mortality data by age group:

coronavirus%20covid%20mortality%20us%20b

As shown, deaths in young people (from babies to college students) are almost non-existent. The first age group to provide a substantial contribution to the death toll is 45-54 years, who contribute nearly 5% of all coronavirus deaths. More than 80% of deaths occur in people aged 65 and over. That increases to over 92% if the 55-64 age group is included.

 

One thing that is often forgotten is that people of all ages are dying all the time. Each year, about 2.8 million Americans pass away. The following chart shows the percentage of deaths in each age group that were due to coronavirus:

 

coronavirus%20covid%20death%20age%20tota

Of the roughly 1.2 million American deaths that occurred between February 1 and June 17, almost 9% were due to coronavirus. The proportion of deaths due to coronavirus were about the same for each age group above 45 years. Below that, the proportion of deaths due to coronavirus fell dramatically. Thirteen children of primary and middle school age (5-14 years) died from COVID-19, but this represented only 0.7% of all deaths in this age group; 1,742 kids died of other things during this same time period.

 

U.S. Coronavirus Deaths by Race

 

The following chart depicts U.S. coronavirus deaths by race.

 

coronavirus%20covid%20deaths%20by%20race

 

The number that stands out here is the percentage of COVID deaths that occurred among Black Americans. Blacks constitute about 13% of the U.S. population but suffered 23% of all COVID deaths. 

 

Risk of Death from Coronavirus: COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)

 

None of the above data answers the question, "What is my risk of dying from coronavirus if I get infected?" For that, we need to look at the infection fatality rate (IFR), which is the percentage of people who die given that they are infected.

 

(This includes people with asymptomatic infections or those who are infected but never get tested.) One group believes the range is 0.1% to 0.41% (with a point estimate of 0.28%). Another group, which examined deaths in Geneva, Switzerland, concluded that the overall IFR is 0.38% to 0.98% (with a point estimate of 0.64%.)

 

Of course, IFR varies depending on age. Young people are far less likely to die than older people. The Swiss study estimated IFR's by age group:

 

Screen%20Shot%202020-06-23%20at%206.18.5

While coronavirus is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people (namely, the elderly and immunocompromised), these data also show that the risk for the rest of the population is quite low.

 

CDC Data Sources (Accessed on 23-June-2020)

 

(1) https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

(2) https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/pj7m-y5uh

Tags: 
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a strange bug, no doubt about that.   Unfortunately I do not see that the huge age variance leads to a useful prevention strategy.  Certainly much greater caution should have (and still should be) taken at places like nursing homes.  But for the general population I don't think its possible to segregate by age.  There are about 115M folks 50 and older and 190M 49 or younger in the US (according to the census data).  If the younger group mostly ignores the threat then the virus will be spreading like wildfire in that population so that any contact between the two populations will have a much greater chance of infecting someone in the vulnerable group.   So the isolation between the group has to be very very strict which I don't think is possible.

 

I still think the way to deal with such things (and there will be more) is to have national response teams that pounce on any reported cases, trace them all back, have a fast test (which does not happen right away but must be a priority) quarantines those that test positive (at home if that works, at hotels etc if not) and locks down the local environment as needed to contain the outbreak.  And of course it has to be a system that people are comfortable with and understand and trust and know it will just be a for a couple of weeks, and you can't be fired because of it etc.  Trust is a tall order in the US these days.   Locking down everything everywhere just was not effective, yet was devastating to those who lost their jobs.  Counties with a nationally coordinated response look to have done better (though it isn't over)  and with less economic damage.  Why does a place like Taiwan with proximity to China and high population density have a population of 24 million (7.2% of the US) only have 7 deaths 0.0034% of ours? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the data set for deaths by all causes for 2019-2020 (up to july) Its by state, but totals for the US are at the bottom, its not the easiest UI to navigate)

https://data.cdc.gov/d/muzy-jte6/visualization.  Putting that through excel (dropping of the total deaths so the others

are easier to see and dropping off minor causes we get the following).  Note cardiovascular issues are UP (cancer stays steady however, and here are 2 covid categories so the total is about double either of them).

 

chartpng.thumb.png.6c3d9a6266754751f87638eec91c77c5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Markinsa said:

Coronavirus: COVID Deaths in U.S. by Age, Race

By Alex Berezow, PhD — June 23, 2020

 

While coronavirus is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people (namely, the elderly and immunocompromised), these data also show that the risk for the rest of the population is quite low.

 

Public health officials and the media have been warning us that coronavirus kills not just old or immunocompromised people but young people too. While this is true, it remains relatively uncommon.

 

The CDC has accumulated mortality data about the COVID-19 pandemic from February 1 to June 17. Using this, it is easy to summarize how the disease has impacted Americans differentially based on age and race. Bear in mind, that the CDC's mortality data often lags behind other sources. (For example, the death toll in the United States according to Johns Hopkins is over 120k, but the CDC's most recent data only shows roughly 103k.) Still, this shouldn't impact the age and race analysis.

 

U.S. Coronavirus Deaths by Age

 

Here's the coronavirus mortality data by age group:

coronavirus%20covid%20mortality%20us%20b

As shown, deaths in young people (from babies to college students) are almost non-existent. The first age group to provide a substantial contribution to the death toll is 45-54 years, who contribute nearly 5% of all coronavirus deaths. More than 80% of deaths occur in people aged 65 and over. That increases to over 92% if the 55-64 age group is included.

 

One thing that is often forgotten is that people of all ages are dying all the time. Each year, about 2.8 million Americans pass away. The following chart shows the percentage of deaths in each age group that were due to coronavirus:

 

coronavirus%20covid%20death%20age%20tota

Of the roughly 1.2 million American deaths that occurred between February 1 and June 17, almost 9% were due to coronavirus. The proportion of deaths due to coronavirus were about the same for each age group above 45 years. Below that, the proportion of deaths due to coronavirus fell dramatically. Thirteen children of primary and middle school age (5-14 years) died from COVID-19, but this represented only 0.7% of all deaths in this age group; 1,742 kids died of other things during this same time period.

 

U.S. Coronavirus Deaths by Race

 

The following chart depicts U.S. coronavirus deaths by race.

 

coronavirus%20covid%20deaths%20by%20race

 

The number that stands out here is the percentage of COVID deaths that occurred among Black Americans. Blacks constitute about 13% of the U.S. population but suffered 23% of all COVID deaths. 

 

Risk of Death from Coronavirus: COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)

 

None of the above data answers the question, "What is my risk of dying from coronavirus if I get infected?" For that, we need to look at the infection fatality rate (IFR), which is the percentage of people who die given that they are infected.

 

(This includes people with asymptomatic infections or those who are infected but never get tested.) One group believes the range is 0.1% to 0.41% (with a point estimate of 0.28%). Another group, which examined deaths in Geneva, Switzerland, concluded that the overall IFR is 0.38% to 0.98% (with a point estimate of 0.64%.)

 

Of course, IFR varies depending on age. Young people are far less likely to die than older people. The Swiss study estimated IFR's by age group:

 

Screen%20Shot%202020-06-23%20at%206.18.5

While coronavirus is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people (namely, the elderly and immunocompromised), these data also show that the risk for the rest of the population is quite low.

 

CDC Data Sources (Accessed on 23-June-2020)

 

(1) https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

(2) https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-Death-Counts-for-Coronavirus-Disease-C/pj7m-y5uh

Tags: 

Thanks Markinsa 

Mostly effecting our countries seniors 

Who are the highest risk to die  of many other diseases. Life is full of risks . We could lower the speed limit to ten miles per hour and it would save lives.  Not locking me down again 

Not gonna happen . Everyone I speak with says the same thing . We will accept the risk

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EverCurious452 said:

Its a strange bug, no doubt about that.   Unfortunately I do not see that the huge age variance leads to a useful prevention strategy.  Certainly much greater caution should have (and still should be) taken at places like nursing homes.  But for the general population I don't think its possible to segregate by age.  There are about 115M folks 50 and older and 190M 49 or younger in the US (according to the census data).  If the younger group mostly ignores the threat then the virus will be spreading like wildfire in that population so that any contact between the two populations will have a much greater chance of infecting someone in the vulnerable group.   So the isolation between the group has to be very very strict which I don't think is possible.

 

I still think the way to deal with such things (and there will be more) is to have national response teams that pounce on any reported cases, trace them all back, have a fast test (which does not happen right away but must be a priority) quarantines those that test positive (at home if that works, at hotels etc if not) and locks down the local environment as needed to contain the outbreak.  And of course it has to be a system that people are comfortable with and understand and trust and know it will just be a for a couple of weeks, and you can't be fired because of it etc.  Trust is a tall order in the US these days.   Locking down everything everywhere just was not effective, yet was devastating to those who lost their jobs.  Counties with a nationally coordinated response look to have done better (though it isn't over)  and with less economic damage.  Why does a place like Taiwan with proximity to China and high population density have a population of 24 million (7.2% of the US) only have 7 deaths 0.0034% of ours? 

Do you really believe China has fewer than 5,000 death? I'm not that gullible to believe Taiwan's numbers either.

Our Government stating up new government national response team   I believe would be a stupid mistake

 

Example

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act. The DOE was created to govern policies regarding the nation's nuclear weapons program, naval reactor production, energy-related supervision, and domestic energy production.

 

This dept now has 14,000 federal employees and 95,000 contractors.  

 

Government will take take take till we have nothing left to give.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SocalDinar said:

Do you really believe China has fewer than 5,000 death? I'm not that gullible to believe Taiwan's numbers either.

It's hard to say.  I expect that China is fudging its numbers, but they also are able to enFORCE policy on their population.  I'm not suggesting that is a good thing, only that it allows them to really lockdown for example.  I think Taiwan's numbers are much more believable.  Both countries had 2 rounds of practice and preparation with SARS and MERS so were very much ready for this then was the US (at least under Trump).

 

Quote

 

Our Government stating up new government national response team   I believe would be a stupid mistake

 

So your prescription for handling infectious diseases would be what? just let it go and let the dead fall where they may?  The nxet one might be a lot more deadly.

 

Quote

 

Example

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act. The DOE was created to govern policies regarding the nation's nuclear weapons program, naval reactor production, energy-related supervision, and domestic energy production.

 

This dept now has 14,000 federal employees and 95,000 contractors.  

 

Government will take take take till we have nothing left to give.

 

In addition to overseeing the 96 civilian nuclear reactors, DOE builds and maintain our stockpile of 4700 or so nuclear weapons, runs the national labs as well as funds a lot of energy research in academia (the human genome project even started there, though I'm guessing that was mostly due to DOE having the needed supercomputers)..  Those seem like worthy things to do in my view (e.g. if we're going to have nuclear weapons someone should be monitoring and maintaining them), whether or not they are doing those things efficiently is a different issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 6:40 PM, EverCurious452 said:

It's hard to say.  I expect that China is fudging its numbers, but they also are able to enFORCE policy on their population.  I'm not suggesting that is a good thing, only that it allows them to really lockdown for example.  I think Taiwan's numbers are much more believable.  Both countries had 2 rounds of practice and preparation with SARS and MERS so were very much ready for this then was the US (at least under Trump).

 

So your prescription for handling infectious diseases would be what? just let it go and let the dead fall where they may?  The nxet one might be a lot more deadly.

 

In addition to overseeing the 96 civilian nuclear reactors, DOE builds and maintain our stockpile of 4700 or so nuclear weapons, runs the national labs as well as funds a lot of energy research in academia (the human genome project even started there, though I'm guessing that was mostly due to DOE having the needed supercomputers)..  Those seem like worthy things to do in my view (e.g. if we're going to have nuclear weapons someone should be monitoring and maintaining them), whether or not they are doing those things efficiently is a different issue. 

Not willing to give up any of my rights or freedoms for a bit of safety

I’ve seen to much corruption in my short lifetime to give government any more power. 
 

When the permafrost melts the real fun begins . The ancient viruses released will be tough to deal with to say the least but truth is we humans need to clean up our gene pool. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SocalDinar said:

Not willing to give up any of my rights or freedoms for a bit of safety

I’ve seen to much corruption in my short lifetime to give government any more power. 

To be clear its not your safety that is being protected by (for example) you giving up your "right" to not wear a mask, but the safety of those around you.  Your safety is protected by others doing the same thing.  Don't want to wear a mask?  Fine, just stay "out of town" as it were.  You have every right to swing your fists wildly when you are by yourself, but that right ends when you are next to someone else.  Or to exhale smoke, etc.  Want to drive like a madman on our own property?  No problem.  On a public roadway however you must observe traffic laws.   Sometimes the line here is dawn badly (and should be corrected), but that does not invalidate the principle.

 

Quote

When the permafrost melts the real fun begins . The ancient viruses released will be tough to deal with to say the least but truth is we humans need to clean up our gene pool. 

Ancient viruses in permafrost is an issue (some have already been discovered, though fortunately harmless one's so far).  Much like viruses being exposed by pushing further into the wilderness.  But  "clean up our gene pool"? What does that mean?
 

Edited by EverCurious452
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mind wearing a mask... I get that, but answering questions to a contact tracer.... Not in my playbook. Same goes with answering most questions on a census form. Same goes when a cop asks you a question. They can ask all they want but you never have to answer. 

 

As far as cleaning up the gene pool goes.  Humans are becoming weaker with every generation. Not only do the strong survive but the weak now survive too. We drug our geniuses because they are told they have chemical imbalances. Bipolar is diagnosed as a problem but to many its a blessing. Kids today are not taught to deal with their emotions. Just given drugs that suppresses their feelings. 

 

 Like I've said before. 20 % or less of us cover the other 80%.  We are a family based society.  The only ones we have an obligation to take care of is our family. Our safety nets are abused to the point that those are productive are exploited and ripped off by government. As a owner of two businesses and several properties I have a lot of taxes taken from me. ( we don't pay taxes.... They take taxes...) Never was and never will be my job to pay others way. Thats a personal choice and i do help others that are willing to help themselves. But just because I am in the top 5% of earners does not mean Im have any obligation to subsidize anyone I choose not to.  I pay at the pump so to speak. LA county takes a half of a percent on everything i buy for the homeless in what they call a sales tax. Still have major homeless problem.  Where does that money go???? Its a huge amount of money yet its never enough.

 

I dont mind paying my portion of of things we collectively share.. Thats fair.  Roads, schools Police and fire etc...

I understand why and have no problem letting those handicapped park closer to the front ... but they should still have to pay for their parking.  No one else should have to pay their way. 

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.