[OT, but curious] bye bye, 5G...

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 22:27:55 -0700
Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:

> > 	I guess you didn't even bother looking at the age of the people allegedly killed by the 'virus'?  So, do your homework, read wikimierda. 
> 
> Sure, COVID-19 is mainly killing older people. Looking at various online
> sources, almost half of fatalities were over 75.


	roughly half of the fatalities are people over the 'average life expectancy'. They are already dead, statistically speaking. 

> About 25% were 65-74,
> and about 22% were 45-64. Only about 5% were under 45. And yes, for all
> age groups, most of the fatalities had underlying health conditions.

	so the current PSYOP is just the flu rebranded. And not even the flu as the direct cause but just a factor. 

	
	"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
Influenza spreads around the world in yearly outbreaks, resulting in about three to five million cases of severe illness and about 290,000 to 650,000 deaths" 


> 
> But most of those people arguably died sooner that they would have, but
> for COVID-19. Maybe not a lot sooner, I admit. But in the most heavily
> affected areas, total death rates _did_ increase.

	compared to what? And even if that were the case, it's just how the natural world works. There are ups and downs. 


> 
> Anyway, I do get the argument that it would have made more sense,
> overall, to just let everyone get infected, 

	that's not my point. My point is that this is a ridiculous charade. 


> and let all the old and
> infirm just die. 

	exactly like the always since there living things appeared on earth. Old and sick people die. Of anything. See how fucking insane - and ridiculous the charade is?

	the 'humanitarian' retards supposedly want to stop death - though of course only death caused by their imaginary threat. Nobody is talking about, say, banning cars, which certainly would save a lot of lifes and limbs. Or banning war? War is peace!


> That would arguably have avoided the huge economic
> shitstorm that we'll be facing for the rest of the decade.

> 
> And damn, if you welcome the shitstorm, why complain so loudly about the
> proximate cause? Isn't it all for the lulz?
	
	well, one of the good consequences is that children weren't mind raped in schools for a few months. As to the a possible economic shitstorm, I don't think it will happen. 

	The obvious objective of the charade is to thighten controls over...everything. 

	Hey, didn't you see the Emperor of the Cyphperpunks, Sir Jim Bell advocating for more fascist surveillance?