Coronavirus ( Covid-19) Part II
Carpe_Noctem said:https://youtu.be/a7ZGPDW4gGE
Dr Annie Bukacek
Great! So what she is saying is that before covid-19, " death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses " by physicians. That means all these flu and cancer statistics being thrown around to compare covid-19 deaths are just as skewed NOT because they don't appear to be deaths from cancer or the flu, but because Drs aren't certain, especially when autopsies aren't performed.
She further asserts that there is no universal definition of covid-19, and that the CDC is counting both confirmed and speculative cases of death by covid-19 in the statistics. Which, if what she previously says is true, they are also for the flu, cancer, and any other death they record.
She then contradicts herself by saying that before covid-19, the CDC was likely to receive a more accurate detail of death from other illnesses like cancer or the flu because hospital staff has lab tests, physical exam findings, radiologic studies, etc. to make a " GOOD EDUCATED GUESS ".
There are physical exam findings and labs for covid-19 as well.
But, according to her, "Only God in heaven knows."
Listing a death as covid-19 related would be the same as they are currently listing in relation to the flu. Yes; the person may have an underlying illness, but what killed them? COPD or flu? The flu contributed to their death, of course, or they may have lived or years with COPD had they not caught the flu.
Same thing with covid-19. No?
Here is my suggestion to be fair across the board: let's pick a number ( say 30% ) and reduce the statistics for ALL deaths across the board, including flu, etc.
Sound fair? Good.
I refuse to listen to the fox news one ( sorry, no mainstream media; your words, remember? Or does that only apply to those you don't agree with? ). I am currently listening to the latter.
Have YOU listened to any of the Dark Horse Video productions or various links/articles I have provided. In the previous thread, you had not, nor had you replied to responses.
Dr Annie Bukacek
Great! So what she is saying is that before covid-19, " death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses " by physicians. That means all these flu and cancer statistics being thrown around to compare covid-19 deaths are just as skewed NOT because they don't appear to be deaths from cancer or the flu, but because Drs aren't certain, especially when autopsies aren't performed.
She further asserts that there is no universal definition of covid-19, and that the CDC is counting both confirmed and speculative cases of death by covid-19 in the statistics. Which, if what she previously says is true, they are also for the flu, cancer, and any other death they record.
She then contradicts herself by saying that before covid-19, the CDC was likely to receive a more accurate detail of death from other illnesses like cancer or the flu because hospital staff has lab tests, physical exam findings, radiologic studies, etc. to make a " GOOD EDUCATED GUESS ".
There are physical exam findings and labs for covid-19 as well.
But, according to her, "Only God in heaven knows."
Listing a death as covid-19 related would be the same as they are currently listing in relation to the flu. Yes; the person may have an underlying illness, but what killed them? COPD or flu? The flu contributed to their death, of course, or they may have lived or years with COPD had they not caught the flu.
Same thing with covid-19. No?
Here is my suggestion to be fair across the board: let's pick a number ( say 30% ) and reduce the statistics for ALL deaths across the board, including flu, etc.
Sound fair? Good.
I refuse to listen to the fox news one ( sorry, no mainstream media; your words, remember? Or does that only apply to those you don't agree with? ). I am currently listening to the latter.
Have YOU listened to any of the Dark Horse Video productions or various links/articles I have provided. In the previous thread, you had not, nor had you replied to responses.
Ahavati said:
Thank you.
I've listened to every single one of them ( including the most recent ), and I have not heard them say that. What I have heard them discuss is that Covid-19 is producing a "pneumonia-like" condition that may be misdiagnosed by healthcare professionals; thus, is being mistreated. On the contrary, ventilators could be counterproductive as a treatment.
The latest broadcast was fascinating in regards to a Dr. Cameron Kyle Sidell's observation that it ( symptoms ) mimics more like altitude sickness rather than pneumonia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPTiP714LZM
I attribute their reference to numbers in regards to misdiagnosis' of pneumonia, not covid-19. This virus is killing people; however, perhaps not in the way we think.
If there's another episode that I may have missed which they say specifically the numbers are very skewed, please let me know. Thanks!
Glad to hear you enjoy the podcast. I don't have time to engage much on here, so will just say the important stuff and then hopefully go focus on the things I should be doing.
"Skewed numbers" was a term I came up with based on what I heard about Covid 19 data collection on the podcast (everything I say isn't a direct quote)
And in case you misinterpreted my comment about skewed data as having something to do with the mislabeling of deaths... I'm not sure it does. Haven't looked into it. I was referring to Covid 19 data in general based on what I heard in this episode of The Dark Horse podcast:
Skip to 35:21
https://youtu.be/l-W9O7qhstY
Bret: "...there's a deeper problem which has to do with the quality of data, and we've talked about this many times...one of the things which is causing this situation to be far worse than it otherwise would be is that we can't actually say for sure what is taking place, because the data itself is so low quality.
It's in many ways extremely noisy, but worse than that, it contains systematic biases that may come from the fact that different countries report things differently, record them differently, or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another... which is blinding us to what is actually taking place"
Thank you.
I've listened to every single one of them ( including the most recent ), and I have not heard them say that. What I have heard them discuss is that Covid-19 is producing a "pneumonia-like" condition that may be misdiagnosed by healthcare professionals; thus, is being mistreated. On the contrary, ventilators could be counterproductive as a treatment.
The latest broadcast was fascinating in regards to a Dr. Cameron Kyle Sidell's observation that it ( symptoms ) mimics more like altitude sickness rather than pneumonia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPTiP714LZM
I attribute their reference to numbers in regards to misdiagnosis' of pneumonia, not covid-19. This virus is killing people; however, perhaps not in the way we think.
If there's another episode that I may have missed which they say specifically the numbers are very skewed, please let me know. Thanks!
Glad to hear you enjoy the podcast. I don't have time to engage much on here, so will just say the important stuff and then hopefully go focus on the things I should be doing.
"Skewed numbers" was a term I came up with based on what I heard about Covid 19 data collection on the podcast (everything I say isn't a direct quote)
And in case you misinterpreted my comment about skewed data as having something to do with the mislabeling of deaths... I'm not sure it does. Haven't looked into it. I was referring to Covid 19 data in general based on what I heard in this episode of The Dark Horse podcast:
Skip to 35:21
https://youtu.be/l-W9O7qhstY
Bret: "...there's a deeper problem which has to do with the quality of data, and we've talked about this many times...one of the things which is causing this situation to be far worse than it otherwise would be is that we can't actually say for sure what is taking place, because the data itself is so low quality.
It's in many ways extremely noisy, but worse than that, it contains systematic biases that may come from the fact that different countries report things differently, record them differently, or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another... which is blinding us to what is actually taking place"
Umm said:
Glad to hear you enjoy the podcast. I don't have time to engage much on here, so will just say the important stuff and then hopefully go focus on the things I should be doing.
Love them and been listening since commentonly posted the original in the original thread. I really enjoy how they come back in the new podcasts to correct any mistakes they may have inadvertently stated.
"Skewed numbers" was a term I came up with based on what I heard about Covid 19 data collection on the podcast (everything I say isn't a direct quote)
And in case you misinterpreted my comment about skewed data as having something to do with the mislabeling of deaths... I'm not sure it does. Haven't looked into it. I was referring to Covid 19 data in general based on what I heard in this episode of The Dark Horse podcast:
Skip to 35:21
https://youtu.be/l-W9O7qhstY
Bret: "...there's a deeper problem which has to do with the quality of data, and we've talked about this many times...one of the things which is causing this situation to be far worse than it otherwise would be is that we can't actually say for sure what is taking place, because the data itself is so low quality.
It's in many ways extremely noisy, but worse than that it contains systematic biases that may come from the fact that different countries report things differently, record them differently, or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another... which is blinding us to what is actually taking place"
That I remember them discussing, particularly in reference to Chinese references ( or that may have been another episode ).
The term you used, "numbers being very skewed", ( [ extremely ] "biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading" ) would lead the reader to believe that the Dark Horse Podcasts were asserting that numbers were intentionally skewed vs low quality, which infers poor or inferior vs deliberate.
Glad we cleared that up! Have fun with your day!
Glad to hear you enjoy the podcast. I don't have time to engage much on here, so will just say the important stuff and then hopefully go focus on the things I should be doing.
Love them and been listening since commentonly posted the original in the original thread. I really enjoy how they come back in the new podcasts to correct any mistakes they may have inadvertently stated.
"Skewed numbers" was a term I came up with based on what I heard about Covid 19 data collection on the podcast (everything I say isn't a direct quote)
And in case you misinterpreted my comment about skewed data as having something to do with the mislabeling of deaths... I'm not sure it does. Haven't looked into it. I was referring to Covid 19 data in general based on what I heard in this episode of The Dark Horse podcast:
Skip to 35:21
https://youtu.be/l-W9O7qhstY
Bret: "...there's a deeper problem which has to do with the quality of data, and we've talked about this many times...one of the things which is causing this situation to be far worse than it otherwise would be is that we can't actually say for sure what is taking place, because the data itself is so low quality.
It's in many ways extremely noisy, but worse than that it contains systematic biases that may come from the fact that different countries report things differently, record them differently, or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another... which is blinding us to what is actually taking place"
That I remember them discussing, particularly in reference to Chinese references ( or that may have been another episode ).
The term you used, "numbers being very skewed", ( [ extremely ] "biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading" ) would lead the reader to believe that the Dark Horse Podcasts were asserting that numbers were intentionally skewed vs low quality, which infers poor or inferior vs deliberate.
Glad we cleared that up! Have fun with your day!
Anonymous
Ahavati said:
Great! So what she is saying is that before covid-19, " death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses " by physicians. That means all these flu and cancer statistics being thrown around to compare covid-19 deaths are just as skewed NOT because they don't appear to be deaths from cancer or the flu, but because Drs aren't certain, especially when autopsies aren't performed.
She further asserts that there is no universal definition of covid-19, and that the CDC is counting both confirmed and speculative cases of death by covid-19 in the statistics. Which, if what she previously says is true, they are also for the flu, cancer, and any other death they record.
She then contradicts herself by saying that before covid-19, the CDC was likely to receive a more accurate detail of death from other illnesses like cancer or the flu because hospital staff has lab tests, physical exam findings, radiologic studies, etc. to make a " GOOD EDUCATED GUESS ".
There are physical exam findings and labs for covid-19 as well.
But, according to her, "Only God in heaven knows."
Listing a death as covid-19 related would be the same as they are currently listing in relation to the flu. Yes; the person may have an underlying illness, but what killed them? COPD or flu? The flu contributed to their death, of course, or they may have lived or years with COPD had they not caught the flu.
Same thing with covid-19. No?
Here is my suggestion to be fair across the board: let's pick a number ( say 30% ) and reduce the statistics for ALL deaths across the board, including flu, etc.
Sound fair? Good.
I refuse to listen to the fox news one ( sorry, no mainstream media; your words, remember? Or does that only apply to those you don't agree with? ). I am currently listening to the latter.
Have YOU listened to any of the Dark Horse Video productions or various links/articles I have provided. In the previous thread, you had not, nor had you replied to responses.
Sounds good to me.
A Covid-19 related death is a death that wouldn't have occurred if Covid-19 did not enter into the equation.
An hour ago it was reported that the total number of deaths in New York was 7,067.
If that total is inaccurate upwards or downwards, does it matter?
Not really.
Will the numbers keep getting adjusted over the next 12 months as all the data is put under a microscope by thousands of experts?
Certainly.
Great! So what she is saying is that before covid-19, " death certificates were based on assumptions and educated guesses " by physicians. That means all these flu and cancer statistics being thrown around to compare covid-19 deaths are just as skewed NOT because they don't appear to be deaths from cancer or the flu, but because Drs aren't certain, especially when autopsies aren't performed.
She further asserts that there is no universal definition of covid-19, and that the CDC is counting both confirmed and speculative cases of death by covid-19 in the statistics. Which, if what she previously says is true, they are also for the flu, cancer, and any other death they record.
She then contradicts herself by saying that before covid-19, the CDC was likely to receive a more accurate detail of death from other illnesses like cancer or the flu because hospital staff has lab tests, physical exam findings, radiologic studies, etc. to make a " GOOD EDUCATED GUESS ".
There are physical exam findings and labs for covid-19 as well.
But, according to her, "Only God in heaven knows."
Listing a death as covid-19 related would be the same as they are currently listing in relation to the flu. Yes; the person may have an underlying illness, but what killed them? COPD or flu? The flu contributed to their death, of course, or they may have lived or years with COPD had they not caught the flu.
Same thing with covid-19. No?
Here is my suggestion to be fair across the board: let's pick a number ( say 30% ) and reduce the statistics for ALL deaths across the board, including flu, etc.
Sound fair? Good.
I refuse to listen to the fox news one ( sorry, no mainstream media; your words, remember? Or does that only apply to those you don't agree with? ). I am currently listening to the latter.
Have YOU listened to any of the Dark Horse Video productions or various links/articles I have provided. In the previous thread, you had not, nor had you replied to responses.
Sounds good to me.
A Covid-19 related death is a death that wouldn't have occurred if Covid-19 did not enter into the equation.
An hour ago it was reported that the total number of deaths in New York was 7,067.
If that total is inaccurate upwards or downwards, does it matter?
Not really.
Will the numbers keep getting adjusted over the next 12 months as all the data is put under a microscope by thousands of experts?
Certainly.
JohnnyBlaze said:
Sounds good to me.
A Covid-19 related death is a death that wouldn't have occurred if Covid-19 did not enter into the equation.
An hour ago it was reported that the total number of deaths in New York was 7,067.
If that total is inaccurate upwards or downwards, does it matter? Will the numbers keep getting adjusted over the next 12 months as all the data is put under a microscope by thousands of experts? Certainly.
it doesn't take a rocket scientist, doctor, or biologist to conclude that, does it? It simply takes common sense.
Sounds good to me.
A Covid-19 related death is a death that wouldn't have occurred if Covid-19 did not enter into the equation.
An hour ago it was reported that the total number of deaths in New York was 7,067.
If that total is inaccurate upwards or downwards, does it matter? Will the numbers keep getting adjusted over the next 12 months as all the data is put under a microscope by thousands of experts? Certainly.
it doesn't take a rocket scientist, doctor, or biologist to conclude that, does it? It simply takes common sense.
Ahavati said:
That I remember them discussing, particularly in reference to Chinese references ( or that may have been another episode ).
The term you used, "numbers being very skewed", ( [ extremely ] "biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading" ) would lead the reader to believe that the Dark Horse Podcasts were asserting that numbers were intentionally skewed vs low quality, which infers poor or inferior vs deliberate.
Glad we cleared that up! Have fun with your day!
No. Nothing to do with the Chinese. They were discussing something else entirely. The link was in my previous post in case you missed it.
I stand by the term I used, yes I said very skewed... But I did not use the word extremely. As I understand it, systematic error is detrimental to the accuracy of data collection. Ergo...leading to very skewed data
Ahavati said:
would lead the reader to believe that the Dark Horse Podcasts were asserting that numbers were intentionally skewed vs low quality, which infers poor or inferior vs deliberate.
Bret "or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another."
Good day to you too 🍻
Those We've Lost to the Coronavirus:
https://www.nytimes.com/series/people-died-coronavirus-obituaries
https://www.nytimes.com/series/people-died-coronavirus-obituaries
Anonymous
Ahavati said:
it doesn't take a rocket scientist, doctor, or biologist to conclude that, does it? It simply takes common sense.
Exactly.
If we were to say that 7,067 total deaths was wrong and that the truth was somewhere in between 5,000 and 9,000 deaths - I'm still going to behave with caution and distance myself socially.
it doesn't take a rocket scientist, doctor, or biologist to conclude that, does it? It simply takes common sense.
Exactly.
If we were to say that 7,067 total deaths was wrong and that the truth was somewhere in between 5,000 and 9,000 deaths - I'm still going to behave with caution and distance myself socially.
Umm said:
No. Nothing to do with the Chinese. They were discussing something else entirely. The link was in my previous post in case you missed it.
I didn't miss it, and said it ( paraphrased ) could've been a different one. Or, maybe it was an answer to a question. Regardless, it was mentioned.
I stand by the term I used, yes I said very skewed... But I did not use the word extremely. As I understand it, systematic error is detrimental to the accuracy of data collection. Ergo...leading to very skewed data
I didn't say you did use the word extremely, thus it was in brackets, meaning inserted as a synonym of "very", the word you did use. For the sake of bandwidth I'll refrain from posting a screenshot of the synonym. . . ;)
Bret "or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another."
Good day to you too 🍻
[ . . . ] " may cause " connotes a different meaning than your initial assertion of
Umm said:
. . .
The Dark horse podcast also talked about the numbers being very skewed.
I would've inserted "talked about the [ potential ] of numbers being very skewed", for clarification purposes. But that's me.
Tomato/tomahto! 🍻
No. Nothing to do with the Chinese. They were discussing something else entirely. The link was in my previous post in case you missed it.
I didn't miss it, and said it ( paraphrased ) could've been a different one. Or, maybe it was an answer to a question. Regardless, it was mentioned.
I stand by the term I used, yes I said very skewed... But I did not use the word extremely. As I understand it, systematic error is detrimental to the accuracy of data collection. Ergo...leading to very skewed data
I didn't say you did use the word extremely, thus it was in brackets, meaning inserted as a synonym of "very", the word you did use. For the sake of bandwidth I'll refrain from posting a screenshot of the synonym. . . ;)
Bret "or that the political interests of the leaders and the countries that they represent may cause them to bias the data in one way or another."
Good day to you too 🍻
[ . . . ] " may cause " connotes a different meaning than your initial assertion of
Umm said:
. . .
The Dark horse podcast also talked about the numbers being very skewed.
I would've inserted "talked about the [ potential ] of numbers being very skewed", for clarification purposes. But that's me.
Tomato/tomahto! 🍻
This is why it's impossible to have a conversation with you, Carpe. Impossible. You have inferred from day one, that mainstream media sources ( of which FOX is one ) are government controlled propaganda machines. This only applies ( apparently ) to those who report something you personally disagree with. In this case, you agree with the government controlled mainstream media propaganda machine because it's saying what you want to hear.
Furthermore, you have REFUSED to donate a minute of your time to alternate sources nor address responses ( such as the above regarding your first source ). This is an example of me listening and refuting your source with common sense, and you failed to even acknowledge that, because your GOAL is to keep the reader and responder focused on the CONSPIRACY issue of this virus, not the actual deaths or families mourning,
That is a blatant act of disrespect.
Sorry, you're in the wrong thread or that. And that's not overstepping my bounds. On the contrary, it's adhering to the guidelines of this thread in regards to reading and responding. Something narrow-minded tunnel-visioned individuals cannot do.
Furthermore, you have REFUSED to donate a minute of your time to alternate sources nor address responses ( such as the above regarding your first source ). This is an example of me listening and refuting your source with common sense, and you failed to even acknowledge that, because your GOAL is to keep the reader and responder focused on the CONSPIRACY issue of this virus, not the actual deaths or families mourning,
That is a blatant act of disrespect.
Sorry, you're in the wrong thread or that. And that's not overstepping my bounds. On the contrary, it's adhering to the guidelines of this thread in regards to reading and responding. Something narrow-minded tunnel-visioned individuals cannot do.
Layla said:
Sorry to butt in...but there's no shortage of supplies at least here in US. As a matter of fact the shelves in stores are more full than ever.
They truly are, Layla. And that makes me wonder if that's a good or bad thing. Does that mean supply and demand is being met; or, does that mean people don't have the money to spend?
I've been reading some articles, but haven't found a balanced one from a reliable source I want to post yet. It's on the agenda for this thread.
Sorry to butt in...but there's no shortage of supplies at least here in US. As a matter of fact the shelves in stores are more full than ever.
They truly are, Layla. And that makes me wonder if that's a good or bad thing. Does that mean supply and demand is being met; or, does that mean people don't have the money to spend?
I've been reading some articles, but haven't found a balanced one from a reliable source I want to post yet. It's on the agenda for this thread.
No article or link will do justice to actually report the truth than regular people like myself, you or another that do step out to get necessities.
In my case, since my job involves working on ground level with everyday people and knowing how my companies' delivery is scheduled, delivered on daily basis. I know first hand how the shelves are stocked, who is buying what, at what rate, i can even tell you the amount of money spent per checkout, and how they form of payment is.
(btw, it used to be 90% credit, with this chaos cash payments have equaled credit, so its been 50/50)
Ahavati, i think that initial hysteria of overshopping have finally satisfied the public by overstocking their homes. I think their feelings of insecurity that stores will run out of supplies have restored their confidence seeing that each time they go out they're able to find what they need.
Also, the fact that most stores implemented quantity limit making sure everyone got their share, there's less panic.
As for money and debt, i think america lives on borrowed time and credit, its always been like that and no one knows better than the government hence the rush to open up the businesses.
If this situation prolongs, lets say past july we're all in deep shit lol
Ahavati said:
They truly are, Layla. And that makes me wonder if that's a good or bad thing. Does that mean supply and demand is being met; or, does that mean people don't have the money to spend?
I've been reading some articles, but haven't found one I really want to post yet.
Ahavati said:This is why it's impossible to have a conversation with you, Carpe. Impossible. You have inferred from day one, that mainstream media sources ( of which FOX is one ) are government controlled propaganda machines. This only applies ( apparently ) to those who report something you personally disagree with. In this case, you agree with the government controlled mainstream media propaganda machine because it's saying what you want to hear.
Furthermore, you have REFUSED to donate a minute of your time to alternate sources nor address responses ( such as the above regarding your first source ). This is an example of me listening and refuting your source with common sense, and you failed to even acknowledge that, because your GOAL is to keep the reader and responder focused on the CONSPIRACY issue of this virus, not the actual deaths or families mourning,
That is a blatant act of disrespect.
Sorry, you're in the wrong thread or that. And that's not overstepping my bounds. On the contrary, it's adhering to the guidelines of this thread in regards to reading and responding. Something narrow-minded tunnel-visioned individuals cannot do.
Well considering how the deaths are being misreported, family members are even coming forward saying so and so family member did not die of COVID-19.
Or is this thread actually about your virtue signaling and continued control of the narrative.
You refute the Dr sure but how about the countless others? Or nurses that are being laid off or put back on shift work. Or the empty hospitals, or how about the panic buying happening globally the fault of the media.
Also I found it funny how Josh (someone you said you respect) responded to your points from the original covid19 thread in the corona time thread. You where nowhere to be seen.
Would you like me to quote him here, or does that not fit your guidelines of this thread?
https://youtu.be/fYWWvSTQkNI
The guy at the start discusses Dr faucui (sp) publishing a lower fatality rate in the Boston medical, then he gives different statistics to the press. So what is the actual statistics here?
Re the supply chain, sure the warehouses will for sometime be able to keep up somewhat with demand but for how long. With many workers being told to stay home, many places shutting, no workers harvesting fruit and vegetables, how long will the supply chain last
https://youtu.be/m4jr0wkt7HY
Food shutdown farmers told to quit farming.
Furthermore, you have REFUSED to donate a minute of your time to alternate sources nor address responses ( such as the above regarding your first source ). This is an example of me listening and refuting your source with common sense, and you failed to even acknowledge that, because your GOAL is to keep the reader and responder focused on the CONSPIRACY issue of this virus, not the actual deaths or families mourning,
That is a blatant act of disrespect.
Sorry, you're in the wrong thread or that. And that's not overstepping my bounds. On the contrary, it's adhering to the guidelines of this thread in regards to reading and responding. Something narrow-minded tunnel-visioned individuals cannot do.
Well considering how the deaths are being misreported, family members are even coming forward saying so and so family member did not die of COVID-19.
Or is this thread actually about your virtue signaling and continued control of the narrative.
You refute the Dr sure but how about the countless others? Or nurses that are being laid off or put back on shift work. Or the empty hospitals, or how about the panic buying happening globally the fault of the media.
Also I found it funny how Josh (someone you said you respect) responded to your points from the original covid19 thread in the corona time thread. You where nowhere to be seen.
Would you like me to quote him here, or does that not fit your guidelines of this thread?
https://youtu.be/fYWWvSTQkNI
The guy at the start discusses Dr faucui (sp) publishing a lower fatality rate in the Boston medical, then he gives different statistics to the press. So what is the actual statistics here?
Re the supply chain, sure the warehouses will for sometime be able to keep up somewhat with demand but for how long. With many workers being told to stay home, many places shutting, no workers harvesting fruit and vegetables, how long will the supply chain last
https://youtu.be/m4jr0wkt7HY
Food shutdown farmers told to quit farming.
