It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: chr0naut
The mortality statistics are supposed to be related to those who are known to be infected, not to other large unrelated numbers.
Tell that to the poster I was replying to.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Isn't it funny how many of those ATS'ers who want military action against China because it lied about its numbers, are the same people who want to prove that damn near everyone's numbers are wrong, and/or that deny that COVID-19 is a problem.
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: trollz
Isn't it funny how many of those ATS'ers who want military action against China because it lied about its numbers, are the same people who want to prove that damn near everyone's numbers are wrong, and/or that deny that COVID-19 is a problem.
I suspect they couldn't even sit on a toilet the right way around.
Assuming that the numbers aren't perfectly correct, what do they actually tell us, and what should our leadership be doing with that information? - Ignoring it while bodies pile up from a bogus malady? - Or, acting on the information that we do have, to save as many as possible?
Preliminary results from antibody testing must be taken with a number of caveats, the professor emphasizes.
But blood donations are not representative of the entire population because they are generally healthier than the total population. - Therefore, the actual number infected throughout the Danish population may well be greater, says Henrik Ullum, who emphasizes that the figures are preliminary and must be read with caution.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
Isn't it funny how many of those ATS'ers who want military action against China because it lied about its numbers, are the same people who want to prove that damn near everyone's numbers are wrong, and/or that deny that COVID-19 is a problem.
Can you link a single post of anyone suggesting military action with China? If they did they are rather stupid..., but I think your hyperbole is kind of stupid...
originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps it wasn't hyperbole?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps it wasn't hyperbole?
2 were the same post... I also said if someone did say that then they are idiots, as to you hyperbole, I still see it as the same unless you want to join the two idiots too, and I don't think you are one or want to join, so is it hyperbole or not...lol
originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, I should have double-checked the posts before committing it. However, if you go through the particular thread, you will find other posters who echoed the same sentiments. And like I said, similar posts and threads on the topic have been removed.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, I should have double-checked the posts before committing it. However, if you go through the particular thread, you will find other posters who echoed the same sentiments. And like I said, similar posts and threads on the topic have been removed.
Do you think it is a common sentiment among Americans or a couple of people blowing steam? Suggesting using a nuke is a little over the top wouldn't ya think...lol
originally posted by: chr0naut
It would be very ill-advised, and is a minority viewpoint but there does seem to be a perception among many Americans that such carnage is morally defensible.
Like with recent drone strikes, and wars against Afganistan and Iraq. Someone (in the US) made a decision to take the lives of other human beings. Did the ends make it the morally and ethically right thing to do, or was it just another justification for murder, for political and economic ends?
It has happened before - US history.
originally posted by: vonclod
The study is not worth much, it is not a proper representation of a populace.
originally posted by: DupontDeux
originally posted by: vonclod
The study is not worth much, it is not a proper representation of a populace.
It is RT abusing the study - the study itself was useful for what it tried to be.
The question was: Since we have demographic data for the blood donors and since we have demographic data for confirmed cases, we can compare the two groups. If we test blood donors blood, how well then does the numbers translate between the two groups.
In essence the study asked how many cases went unreported for every one that did get reported.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
It would be very ill-advised, and is a minority viewpoint but there does seem to be a perception among many Americans that such carnage is morally defensible.
Like with recent drone strikes, and wars against Afganistan and Iraq. Someone (in the US) made a decision to take the lives of other human beings. Did the ends make it the morally and ethically right thing to do, or was it just another justification for murder, for political and economic ends?
It has happened before - US history.
You can't go from 0 to 60 with this... No one is going to war with China or drop nukes on China... lol
We also like to dump a ton of sanctions on countries too, and there is a good argument that our sanctions are worst than our wars.
Killing Chins's economy by leaving them and going else where would be worth about 100 nukes in damage. America's capitalism made China what it is today, sorry to say, but we can say we brought 1 billion Chinese out of extreme poverty in the last 30 years.
We are reaching a point where China is too expensive so time to move on....
originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: trollz
Just another nail in the coffin for this manufactured hoax crisis.
Not really the data for a number of reasons varies a lot from country to country.