Covid: "But the NUMBERS Say There's a Pandemic!"
Updated: May 6, 2021
Note: For the complete "Table of Contents" of objections to the pandemic being a psyop (psychological operation) following the shock-doctrine playbook, and a full explanation of how and why it was deployed, and what its architects are seeking from it, and how to defeat them, visit our main page on covid.
Objection #2:
"But the statistics say there's a pandemic!
________ cases in this state.
________ cases in that state.
_____ fatalities in this country.
_____ fatalities in that country.
Numbers don't lie.
It's a pandemic!"
Answer:
When the average person hears about a virus, the way most of us assess its dangerousness is by comparing it to other viruses that we already know about.
If someone says, “a virus exists, and 1000 people died from it last year", this doesn’t really tell us much. Not by itself.
It only takes on meaning when it’s put into the context of comparison to other viruses. For instance, the number of deaths attributed to the flu is in the tens of thousands per year in the USA, and half a million per year globally. So compared to that, 1000 is not cause for panic.
Only through comparison can we get any sort of context to assess what the number means, in terms of “reality on the ground” and “what it actually means for us.” When you hear the "covid" numbers - such as the "25 million cases" number, or the "500,000 deaths" number, you assess the gravity of these numbers by comparing them to the numbers from already-existing viruses, mainly the flu. The flu’s toll in an average year is about 50,000 in the USA, so in comparison to that, "500,000" (from "covid") does sound important. It’s ten times as much!
"Exactly! So what's the your argument?"
Here's the problem.
Scientific Consistency
One of the foundations of Science is consistency of measurement methods. It is unscientific to compare two numbers that were measured differently. You cannot, for instance, measure one road in miles, and another in kilometers, and then conclude that the latter is a longer road because the number value is bigger.
Right?
And if the roads are curvy, you also can't measure one with a yardstick, and the other with rope or tape that curves, and then compare the numbers.
Right?
You have to be consistent in your measuring methods, or else it's unscientific.
"Right. And?"
This means:
You can't use statistics to prove a virus is more dangerous and severe than other viruses if you're compiling those statistics differently from how you do it for all other viruses.
You cant use case numbers to prove a virus is more contagious than other viruses if you're counting the cases differently from how you count them for all other viruses.
You can't use fatality numbers to prove a virus is more deadly than other viruses if you're counting the fatalities differently from the way you count them for all other viruses.
To do so is unscientific.
And yet that is exactly what's happening.
The numbers you see on your TV, and in the newspapers, are designed to mislead you via comparison to your already-existing assumptions about the prevalence and severity of other viruses. With numbers that are "larger" than those of previous viruses, you're expected to think that this one is "worse."

The problem is, the "covid" numbers are compiled differently from the way numbers are compiled for other viruses.
It is unscientific and illogical to compare "covid" statistics to those of other viruses, and unscientific to draw conclusions about covid's virulence or severity based on them.
Your threat-assessment of "covid" is based on an emotionally potent, but deeply unscientific methodology.
"What you're saying makes sense... IF they're really counting differently. How are they doing so?"
Clownish Epidemiology
Everything about the way our leading "scientific" bodies are counting "covid" numbers violates the most basic principles of epidemiology.
They're counting cases differently because they're deploying armies of testers to fan out across the world and test hundreds of millions of people. They've obviously never done anything even remotely similar to this, for any other virus. You can't detect something if you're not testing for it. Obviously. And they've never tested with this intensity before.
And they're counting fatalities differently by including everyone who dies of any cause or any disease, as a "covid death," as long as covid (or even just a trace remnant of it) was present in their system at the time of death (or, sometimes, at any point in the person's life).
If a person dies of any cause - be it a heart attack, cancer, kidney failure, or anything else on the long list of chronic diseases - or even accidents, such as traffic or work-related injuries - and that person tested positive for covid at any time prior to dying - then that person is counted in the covid fatality count.
It doesn't matter how much of a role covid played in their death.
It doesn't matter whether covid played any role in their death at all.
It doesn't matter whether they were even sick from it. An asymptomatic carrier of covid, (or even an asymptomatic former carrier of covid), who dies of any cause, is counted in the covid fatality number - even though they were not sick with covid.
No distinction is being made between dying from covid and dying with covid.
Here is a gallery of over THREE HUNDRED testimonies of individual people who say that their friend or relative was listed as "dying of Covid" when they died of something else entirely.
With is being treated as equal to From, for statistical counting purposes.
