I said it a month ago and I will say it again - COVID-19 was used to perform the biggest robbery in American history, with the stimulus used to blind us, as hush money. You can say that's a conspiracy theory all you want, but it just seems blatantly obvious to me when looking at stats (of covid-19 and of similar coronaviruses and outbreaks) and take emotion and fear out of it.

@obi Rob of us what exactly? And what about the virus isnt serious? the mortality rate is huge.

@freemo let's take Italy for example. 90% of the deaths were people over the age of 70yrs old. Also, More people are infected than numbers show too, obviously, since not every person has been tested. These numbers are on par with the other types of corona viruses. It's not abnormal (unless you decide to take the other similar illnesses as serious).

Rob us as devaluing our money with the fed, creating trillions out of thin air, and having to pay it back with interest. Creating an excuse to give big corporation billions or trillions with no guidelines on how to spend it. Crashing the economy to lower values, making it easier for the wealthy to gobble it up at those low prices, while everyday americans can't afford rent let alone investments etc.

@obi That is such complete nonsense I dont know where to start...

For starters how is the fact that 70% of people are older matter? That is true of every single virus that ever existed, older weaker people die in larger numbers, obviously. That is not in **any way** an indication the virus is any less serious. Ebola will melt your insides, but if your 80 you still stand way less of a chance of surviving ebola than a little kid, so what?

Next, yes there are people who arent tested, the number tested is **not** an indication of the total number infected, that is much much higher. If we go by the mortality rate of only people tested then the mortality rate is around 9%, which as you suggest is not the correct number. If however we use the data to approximate the actual mortality rate it is closer to 1% - 3%, that is not **anywhere NEAR** comparable to other coronaviruses that we see in the wild among humans (which are less than 0.01% mortality).. so no again this is nonsense.

Its not just nonsense it seems completely ignorant of the real data.

@freemo well maybe I am wrong. The data I've looked at showed mortality rate at 3.4%, of people tested. Or are we talking about Italy in specific, where I know its higher? There population age over 55 years old is about 10% higher than ours I think. That coupled with congestion and medical care wait times could also be a large factor in there higher death rate, in comparison to other countries.

I never said it shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm just confused to as why. A much higher number of people dies everyday from other communicable diseases, but we shut nothing down, take no extra measures. With emotion taken out of the equation, I can't see why such drastic measures are taken.

@obi No your reading the data all wrong..

So if you just look at unfiltered data world-wide of everyone who was tested postive and recovered thent eh mortality rate is a whopping 21%. the figure of 3.4% would be the number you get if you look at everyone tested with coronavirus all together anc calculate that against the percentage that have died, thats 3.4% figure you cited. but neither the 3.4% figure you cited nor the 21% "actual" figure are useful for several reasons. The biggest reason is that the percentage of people with **active** infections are as large as the total number of people who had infections and no longer do. Obviously if a person is going to die of this disease they die in the late stages, not the early stages, so you dont factor in people who just contracted the disease and is a day into it against the mortality rate, that would make no sense. You wait until after they recover to count them (or die).

So no the 3.4% figure is complete nonsense 21% would be the actual measured number.

With that said, as I said you still cant look at the people tested and the percentage that recovered vs died, since you will not accurately test asymptomatic people. For that you have to also factor in the results we see from randomized testing and infer. For that reason the 21% figure we see in the actual data is not really accurate as-is either, but when we factor in the randomized tests then we know the mortality rate is in the 1% - 3% range.

Compare that to the mortality rate of H1N1, the most deadliest flu in recent history which was only around 0.04%

@freemo how do the people infected showing no symptoms factor into that? Since I'm guessing they aren't at high risk of dying? Or isn't the a statistic on infected no symptoms patients?

@obi Those asymptomatic people are revealed through the random testing I mentioned. It is the reason the 21% mortality rate we observe is adjusted down to 1% - 3%, exactly due to these people (and those who are marginally symptomatic but dont need medical help).

@freemo I will definitely sit down and reevaluate the numbers with your data. My apologies, as I am trying to look at this while watch my three crazy kids. Thanks for the info. I reserve the right to respond later :p