tommyguns2
Senior Moderators
Staff Member
- Dec 25, 2010
- 6,313
- 5,005
What if the kids get the shit and bring it home to the parents who then take it to grannies house or to their workplace?
Is this so the kids don't get sick or so it doesn't spread like crazy throughout the land?
Either way what we DO know is who gives a fuck about Covid until someone we care about is hooked up to a ventilator in a hospital.
Who gives a fuck about anything until it affects them directly?
So again why are we trying to stop the spread? who knows?
Why do we bother with seat belts? More people have died from Covid than die on average in 4 years in car crashes in the USA(adults)
Who is the Govt to tell us Sheeple to do ANYTHING??
IF you honestly think that Covid has come along as a Govt control system then your head has been in the sand, todays fucking moronic kids have been manipulated electronically since day one with the blue screens in their faces 23 hrs a day and with mommy being a day care center somewhere while the bio mom is chasing a few bucks around because her choice of a mate can't cut the fucking mustard and provide for his family.
The kids today are mostly fucked either way...lol Don"t kid yourself.
Anyway so why are they not letting the little shits get it and spread it?
Therein lies the question...............
Cheers
You make a lot of legit points here. But you can send kids to school, and instead provide recommendations for targeted lockdowns for those who are actually in the high risk population(s).
If you've got kids going to school, and grandma with emphysema lives with you, then keep your kids home from school and either home school or implement an on-line Internet curriculum. But what about the other 23 kids in his/her class who don't have the same risk environment.
I just think things should be targeted instead of state wide shutdowns. Such shutdowns do not properly take into account all the hidden health, mental health and economic costs of the lockdown.
Lastly, 200,000 deaths, and the median age of those deaths is something like 78. That means 100,000 deaths were people over 78 and most had co-morbidities. How many of those 100,000 would have likely died of other causes this year, given that the national average for life expectancy in 2019 was 78.87? It's reasonable to expect that of the 200,000 deaths of people that were heavily weighted in their 70s and 80s, they may have died anyways, Doesn't mean that their death isn't a tragedy, it is. But just trying to put it in perspective.
We take other risks as a society do we take even though we could prevent those risks. 38,800 traffic fatalities happened in the US last year. If we locked down speed limits to 25mph, traffic fatalities would be almost completely eliminated. Are we douchebags for driving about 25 even though we know we are putting the lives of others at risk?
I don't think the gov't did this on purpose. They don't have the creativity. But I think that some governors were more than happy to drive their state economies into the ground (temporarily) if they thought it would have a desired effect on the election. I absolutely believe that to be true.