the truth is actually explained in the article.. but
the writer only includes parts of these truths and avoids other true facts.. ..by not talking about certain things or makes differing opinion to then make them into lies . just so he can then set his own narative
you can tell he tries too hard in one direction and avoids the real direction of facts.
he tries to make himself from the start sound like he is smart by quoting the dictionary. and then including tipbits of facts.
EG he uses the diamond princess ~700 testing positive and uses the 6-14 deaths to suggest only 1-2%
which in of itself would be the 650k-1.3m of a 65m population
but then rambles down a hole digging narrative of saying thats because they were old
to suggest the number should be way below 500k
what this article writer does not mention. is that its not a situation of everyone is perfectly fine. and then just drop dead instantly.. only if old.
what the article writer avoids is the symptomatic people. he hints that 50% were asymptomatic. but he doesnt talk about the obvious other 50% that had symptoms
its funny how he avoided the symptomatic people.. very funny and very obvious of his avoidance tactic
emphasis again. people dont just drop dead. some few extra percent would need hospital care and would actually survive with hospital care. but wouldnt without hospital care
and the article writer avoids talking about the hospital care requiring people
the article writer just wants to present a narative that its an age thing and how the 1-2% death rate should be lower if you dilute in a more younger age range into the mix. but still not then realising that if the extra few who dont get hospital care. more would die thus bringing the numbers up
..
as for the USS roesevelt
the article writer pretends there was no isolation.. yet the ship did actually isolate its crew
infact they isolated so well that the managed to only have 20% infected. even with daily testing of all 5000 crew. they ultimately only had 1000 that got it. because they isolated
after looking at the number 60% testing positive were asymptomatic... meaning. by simple math 40% DID have symptoms
meaning that if the idiot writing the article includes the people with symptoms. and understands that without some form of care for the ones with severe symptoms. those with severe symptoms could become worse.
heck even if a quarter of those with symptoms(10% of infected) had serious symptoms and didnt get any care. the deaath rate would be higher
the actual facts about the uss roosevelt has documented evidence that those with severe symptoms were evacuated to a hospital where even just in the first week of testing had dozens taken to hospital
and the rest of the crew were separately quarantined in their barracks and slowly taken off ship to quarantine in isolation
so if we take the 1 out of 1000 that died even when evacuated even with intensive care. and then you think about the ones that went to intensive care and survived.. but put them into a scenario where they were not taken to intensive care.. guess what. they would have died too.
meaning the numbers would have been higher without hospital care for those that needed hospital care
..
the article writer then is very ignorant about the differences between the sweden vs NY studies
the article writer does not understand that the two models are different because
from january-march NY was doing repatriation flights and no avoidance measures at all.. so the spike was high and uncontrolled for 2 months
heck NY got its 50thcase/5thdeath per mill in march. sweden didnt until april
yet sweden implemented its social distancing well before april(before their 50:5 case:death per mill
yet NY didnt do crap until after their 50:5case:death per mill
so NY had an ever increasing spike for a few more weeks before people got used to the lockdown. thus had a mega problem
sweden didnt do any large scale repatiation flights. so its first known cases came later and in lower numbers. but they implemented avoidance controls before NY meaning their swedens spike was lower and slower.
they actually got their population to get used to respecting personal space faster than NY thus able to keep the numbers under control.
NY didnt so had to resort to drastic action to full lockdown to prevent the numbers climbing
i do find it funny how this article writer is ignorant of so many facts and avoids even simple maths. and ofcourse avoids any info that actually explains reality. and only uses tip-bits of stuff to then suggest something else by avoiding the whole context
