Yeah this appears to be an old meme. Unless they're implying that over 80% of the reported deaths are not COVID because of the presence of comorbidities. The vast majority of people who die from respiratory viruses have comorbidities. Unless it's a super bug that cytokine storms the hell out of young healthy people like 1918 H1N1. So it's dishonest to discount COVID-19 deaths because of the presence of comorbidities.

SARS-CoV-2 has only mild or no symptoms for 97+% of people (In Canada's COVID hotspot of Peel Region there were 1,685 COVID hospitalizations for 61,345 confirmed cases. 2.7% case hospitalization rate. And COVID ICU admissions only make up 14% of COVID hospital admissions.)

But for <2.7% of the population (even less than that if you include asymptomatics and mild cases that never got tested) it leads to severe symptoms. And it's lethal for <1% of the population.

So if your immune system is in the like bottom <2.7% of the population then it's common sense to take precautions to lower your chances of getting it. If you're in the top 97+% in immune function, at worst you're gonna experience it as a bad flu.

It doesn't make sense to me to torpedo our economy and place 97+% of the population on house arrest to protect the <2.7%. Especially when that <2.7% skews towards the elderly. The old eating the young is a backwards policy. Married people like you with a full pay cheque are obviously going to be primarily concerned about your parents and elderly relatives/friends. But I don't think it's fair for society to force young healthy single people to socially isolate themselves for a year+ to protect <2.7% of the population. Especially when a good chunk of that <2.7% only has a few years of life left to live and it would suck for them to spend the remainder of their life in social isolation away from grandchildren, their adult children, other relatives, friends, etc.

And there are steps that the <2.7% can take to minimize their exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For one, the vast majority of this segment of the population is retired and doesn't need to expose themselves to other people for 40+ hours/week like essential workers. The fault line lies with the people that the <2.7% live with and the <2.7% leaving their home for essential reasons (ie. supermarkets, pharmacies, doctors appointments, hospital, car shops and such). But no system is perfect. Even now retirees are dying with lockdowns.

An unspecified large percentage of the <2.7% is either overweight (particularly obese or morbidly obese) and Type II Diabetic with hypertension. So the <2.7% can improve their odds substantially with lifestyle changes like losing weight and getting your blood sugar down. In a French study with 126 ICU patients, 50% of the ICU patients were obese (BMI 30+), 40% were overweight (BMI 25-30), only 10% had a BMI under 25. It's a small sample size I'm sure. But I bet if we collected large amounts of data on COVID hospitalizations and deaths, most are fat fucks. I went on a diet in lockdown and lost 6% of my body weight just cutting out sugar, snacks and eating less and I was only slightly overweight to start with. An obese person can easily lose 6% of their body weight. If my chubby ass can do it, a fat ass can do it. And losing 6% of my body weight made my jawline more refined due to the loss in buccal fat. Less visceral fat. So now I look like a Chad because I ate right and lifted in lockdown but I risk a $880 fine to slay Tinder Thots while diabetic obese fat asses stuff their face with UberEats and SkipTheDishes and refuse to lose weight to boost their immunity against COVID. While forcing everyone else to lock down to save their fat ass. It's criminal.

But I also think people are being COVID deniers when they hand wave COVID deaths with comorbidities and muh PCR cycles. As if the government is deliberately trying to cook the books to destroy the economy. When really the pressure to lockdown is mainly coming from unelected medical officers of health who don't know shit about economics, child development or mental health, the liberal mainstream media's fear porn, the "experts" they interview and middle-aged suburbanites who fear to come to terms with their parents' mortality. The only real issue with high PCR cycles is that you sometimes catch dead SARS-CoV-2 fragments. Meaning that the host had SARS-CoV-2 in the past but cleared their infection and shouldn't be forced to quarantine. PCR tests do not mistake common cold coronaviruses or the flu for SARS-CoV-2 as they specifically check for unique SARS-CoV-2 genetic signatures.

You can be anti-lockdown while also acknowledging that this virus is serious for the bottom <2.7% of people in immune function.

Yeah this appears to be an old meme. Unless they're implying that over 80% of the reported deaths are not COVID because of the presence of comorbidities. The vast majority of people who die from respiratory viruses have comorbidities. Unless it's a super bug that cytokine storms the hell out of young healthy people like 1918 H1N1. So it's dishonest to discount COVID-19 deaths because of the presence of comorbidities.

SARS-CoV-2 has only mild or no symptoms for 97+% of people (In Canada's COVID hotspot of Peel Region there were 1,685 COVID hospitalizations for 61,345 confirmed cases. 2.7% case hospitalization rate. And COVID ICU admissions only make up 14% of COVID hospital admissions.)

But for <2.7% of the population (even less than that if you include asymptomatics and mild cases that never got tested) it leads to severe symptoms. And it's lethal for <1% of the population.

So if your immune system is in the like bottom <2.7% of the population then it's common sense to take precautions to lower your chances of getting it. If you're in the top 97+% in immune function, at worst you're gonna experience it as a bad flu.

It doesn't make sense to me to torpedo our economy and place 97+% of the population on house arrest to protect the <2.7%. Especially when that <2.7% skews towards the elderly. The old eating the young is a backwards policy. Married people like you with a full pay cheque are obviously going to be primarily concerned about your parents and elderly relatives/friends. But I don't think it's fair for society to force young healthy single people to socially isolate themselves for a year+ to protect <2.7% of the population. Especially when a good chunk of that <2.7% only has a few years of life left to live and it would suck for them to spend the remainder of their life in social isolation away from grandchildren, their adult children, other relatives, friends, etc.

And there are steps that the <2.7% can take to minimize their exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For one, the vast majority of this segment of the population is retired and doesn't need to expose themselves to other people for 40+ hours/week like essential workers. The fault line lies with the people that the <2.7% live with and the <2.7% leaving their home for essential reasons (ie. supermarkets, pharmacies, doctors appointments, hospital, car shops and such). But no system is perfect. Even now retirees are dying with lockdowns.

An unspecified large percentage of the <2.7% is either overweight (particularly obese or morbidly obese) and Type II Diabetic with hypertension. So the <2.7% can improve their odds substantially with lifestyle changes like losing weight and getting your blood sugar down. In a French study with 126 ICU patients, 50% of the ICU patients were obese (BMI 30+), 40% were overweight (BMI 25-30), only 10% had a BMI under 25. It's a small sample size I'm sure. But I bet if we collected large amounts of data on COVID hospitalizations and deaths, most are fat fucks.

But I also think people are being COVID deniers when they hand wave COVID deaths with comorbidities and muh PCR cycles. As if the government is deliberately trying to cook the books to destroy the economy. When really the pressure to lockdown is mainly coming from unelected medical officers of health who don't know shit about economics, child development or mental health, the liberal mainstream media's fear porn, the "experts" they interview and middle-aged suburbanites who fear to come to terms with their parents' mortality. The only real issue with high PCR cycles is that you sometimes catch dead SARS-CoV-2 fragments. Meaning that the host had SARS-CoV-2 in the past but cleared their infection and shouldn't be forced to quarantine. PCR tests do not mistake common cold coronaviruses or the flu for SARS-CoV-2 as they specifically check for unique SARS-CoV-2 genetic signatures.

You can be anti-lockdown while also acknowledging that this virus is serious for the bottom <2.7% of people in immune function.

Yeah this appears to be an old meme. Unless they're implying that over 80% of the reported deaths are not COVID because of the presence of comorbidities.

The vast majority of people who die from respiratory viruses have comorbidities. Unless it's a super bug that cytokine storms the hell out of young healthy people like 1918 H1N1. So it's dishonest to discount COVID-19 deaths because of the presence of comorbidities.

SARS-CoV-2 has only mild or no symptoms for 97+% of people (In Canada's COVID hotspot of Peel Region there were 1,685 COVID hospitalizations for 61,345 confirmed cases. 2.7% case hospitalization rate. And COVID ICU admissions only make up 14% of COVID hospital admissions.)

But for <2.7% of the population (even less than that if you include asymptomatics and mild cases that never got tested) it leads to severe symptoms. And it's lethal for <1% of the population.

So if your immune system is in the like bottom <2.7% of the population then it's common sense to take precautions to lower your chances of getting it.

If you're in the top 97+% in immune function, at worst you're gonna experience it as a bad flu.

It doesn't make sense to me to torpedo our economy and place 97+% of the population on house arrest to protect the <2.7%. Especially when that <2.7% skews towards the elderly. The old eating the young is a backwards policy.

Married people like you with a full pay cheque are obviously going to be primarily concerned about your parents and elderly relatives/friends. But I don't think it's fair for society to force young healthy single people to socially isolate themselves for a year+ to protect <2.7% of the population. Especially when a good chunk of that <2.7% only has a few years of life left to live and it would suck for them to spend the remainder of their life in social isolation away from grandchildren, their adult children, other relatives, friends, etc.

And there are steps that the <2.7% can take to minimize their exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For one, the vast majority of this segment of the population is retired and doesn't need to expose themselves to other people for 40+ hours/week like essential workers. The fault line lies with the people that the <2.7% live with and the <2.7% leaving their home for essential reasons (ie. supermarkets, pharmacies, doctors appointments, hospital, car shops and such). But no system is perfect. Even now retirees are dying with lockdowns.

But I also think people are being COVID deniers when they hand wave COVID deaths with comorbidities and muh PCR cycles. As if the government is deliberately trying to cook the books to destroy the economy. When really the pressure to lockdown is mainly coming from unelected medical officers of health who don't know shit about economics, child development or mental health, the liberal mainstream media's fear porn, the "experts" they interview and middle-aged suburbanites who fear to come to terms with their parents' mortality. The only real issue with high PCR cycles is that you sometimes catch dead SARS-CoV-2 fragments. Meaning that the host had SARS-CoV-2 in the past but cleared their infection and shouldn't be forced to quarantine. PCR tests do not mistake common cold coronaviruses or the flu for SARS-CoV-2 as they specifically check for unique SARS-CoV-2 genetic signatures.

You can be anti-lockdown while also acknowledging that this virus is serious for the bottom <2.7% of people in immune function.