[POLL] Shutting down the Global Economy to fight covid a good idea?

[tvbcof]

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

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.
...

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.

[1714553124]

1714553124

[1714553124]

1714553124

[1714553124]

1714553124

[Cnut237]

the euthanization program [...] The good-old-boys club of eugenicists with seats on the boards of directors

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.

[BCwinning]

the euthanization program [...] The good-old-boys club of eugenicists with seats on the boards of directors

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.

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

[Findingnemo]

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.

[Cnut237]

the euthanization program [...] The good-old-boys club of eugenicists with seats on the boards of directors

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.

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

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[Cnut237]

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, 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.

[BADecker]

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 will 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, 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.

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.

[tvbcof]

...
I mean, people should believe in God, not medicine.
...

...
Or maybe it was just a typo, and you actually meant: People should believe in medicine, not God.
...

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'.

[Cnut237]

Wikipedia allows whatever they personally want to. Anybody can draw graphs and charts.

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.*

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.

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:

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.

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.

[BADecker]

Wikipedia allows whatever they personally want to. Anybody can draw graphs and charts.

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.*

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

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.

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".

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.

* 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).

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.

Edit, second reply:

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.

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.

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.