With the bizarre narratives of the old world, the other side did at least present coherent arguments, like: “What if a woman’s brain was born into a man’s body?”
I’m not sure that that is actually possible, and I don’t think that the solution, in any case, would be castration – but I guess this is a legitimate hypothetical situation, and you can respond to it coherently. Like, sure, okay – what if.
I do not even know how the media plans to respond to the CDC itself publishing their own estimation that “coronavirus” is literally just the flu – except to ignore it, which is what they are doing so far.
In their seven-page document “Coronavirus Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” uploaded a few days ago, they estimate an overall symptomatic case fatality ratio of 0.004.
That is 0.4% of symptomatic cases, and heavily weighted towards people over 65 years of age.
Furthermore, their best estimate is that 35% of cases are asymptomatic.
If you add the symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, this gives you a total case fatality rate of 0.26%.
CDC, 5/21/20 https://t.co/tgHPRpK769, concedes infection fatality ratio (IFR of) “Covid19/Wuhan flu” is = 0.27%*, almost= to 1957-58 pandemic H2N2 flu in U.S., i.e., 0.26%** h/t @ElonBachman BUT NO "LOCKDOWNS" in 1957-8! (1/3)… pic.twitter.com/ZcW4uezLax
— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) May 22, 2020
3/3 Henderson also observed, re: 1957-8: “Measures were generally not taken to close schools or recommend wearing masks; Quarantine was obviously useless because of the large number of travelers & frequency of mild or inapparent cases” https://t.co/cXtiA2xkBT
— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) May 22, 2020
This obviously isn’t the real number. Given that they’ve falsely attributed so many deaths to coronavirus, it is at least twice and possibly as many as three or even four times the real number.
But either way – it’s just the flu, bro.
We have reached a point where there is such dissonance between the media hysteria and the internal reports of our government plague doctors, that if you were to quote these reports and draw obvious conclusions from them, you would probably be accused of promoting dangerous health disinformation.
Even though they are published online, where anyone can see them.
And they can still get away with this hysteria, because no one but fringe outlets are willing to report on what is now in plain view.