Should we bring back lockdowns?

So you're telling me everything is just pre-planned by these politicians from the jump? Honestly, if that's how the game is being run, we might start seeing death penalties popping up in certain states sooner than anyone expects

Let's stop splitting hairs here. The bottom line is that Seehofer was being crystal clear when he demanded his experts cook up some absolute worst-case scenarios just so they’d have an excuse to roll out those heavy-handed, repressive restrictions. We're talking about actual surveillance—basically tracking citizens via their location data. It looks like that whole document was just a roadmap to bring those old-school FBI tactics straight to our doorstep under the guise of a "emergency" (total Corona-dictatorship vibes). Even if you ignore everything else, this is a textbook case of weaponizing a crisis for political gain.
And honestly, the fact that the original article was "manipulated" by the author of this piece? That's the least of our worries right now.

electricorca112 said:Look, I didn't just pull that article out of thin air; I found it right there in The Hammer's Article—it was linked directly in his piece. So, I’m feeling pretty confident that's exactly what he was referring to.

As for the one you sent, you have to sign up or pay a subscription just to read it. And honestly, I'm not about to do either of those things. 🤷

Believe whatever you want to believe.
Maybe the editor accidentally linked to that specific piece, or perhaps nytimes.com updated their links in the meantime—it happens!
But that snippet is really just a teaser designed to bait people into buying the Sunday print edition or signing up for a digital subscription.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone looking closely.
The link I provided leads to the full investigative report compiled by their research team.
So, maybe take a closer look at the facts before accusing folks of spreading propaganda or suggesting readers are falling for things that were never even written.

Gary Cooper3 said:Ugh, I can pull some screenshots together—I can make them myself if needed—but honestly, the easiest thing would be for you to just head over to Macan's LinkedIn profile; that's where he was going back and forth with him.

Macan was being called out by Djikica, who basically popped up out of nowhere, and then Macan started hitting him with all those nonsense arguments he made at the start—like claiming this was somehow a milder illness than the flu, which he’s insisted on multiple times alongside Rudan...

I might be able to grab those screenshots later tonight, but right now, things are a bit too hectic...

If it's true that 180,000 people died without any lockdowns, I'll have to dig through some German news outlets to verify that. Though, I find it hard to believe there was actual manipulation involved... purely because the "zero-covid" and "no-covid" crowds are just delusional groups who genuinely believe a virus can be wiped out entirely.

Thanks, I Googled it but couldn't find that specific news story.

But if that 180,000 figure was stated back at the start rather than today, then it doesn't matter.

I took it as a new claim.

Tyler Garcia69 said:Let's stop splitting hairs here. The bottom line is that Seehofer was being crystal clear when he demanded his experts cook up some absolute worst-case scenarios just so they’d have an excuse to roll out those heavy-handed, repressive restrictions. We're talking about actual surveillance—basically tracking citizens via their location data. It looks like that whole document was just a roadmap to bring those old-school FBI tactics straight to our doorstep under the guise of a "emergency" (total Corona-dictatorship vibes). Even if you ignore everything else, this is a textbook case of weaponizing a crisis for political gain.
And honestly, the fact that the original article was "manipulated" by the author of this piece? That's the least of our worries right now.

Side note: anyone who actually read Snowden knows the absolute worst offenders for wiretapping are Germany, then the UK, and finally the USA...

USA Sen from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

Tyler Garcia69 said:Let's stop splitting hairs here. The bottom line is that Seehofer was being crystal clear when he demanded his experts cook up some absolute worst-case scenarios just so they’d have an excuse to roll out those heavy-handed, repressive restrictions. We're talking about actual surveillance—basically tracking citizens via their location data. It looks like that whole document was just a roadmap to bring those old-school FBI tactics straight to our doorstep under the guise of a "emergency" (total Corona-dictatorship vibes). Even if you ignore everything else, this is a textbook case of weaponizing a crisis for political gain.
And honestly, the fact that the original article was "manipulated" by the author of this piece? That's the least of our worries right now.

Surveillance works incredibly well in places like South Korea or Singapore.

But you can't pull that off under German data privacy laws.

In Germany, they don't even have a unified social security number because those privacy laws make it impossible.

What actually happened in Germany was this: when you ate at a cafe or restaurant, you left your data behind. The owner was required to hold onto it for 21 days before disposing of it. Most people used an app for this, handled through QR codes.

nimblesurfer17 said:Don't try to twist this.
There is a massive difference between being prepared for bad outcomes and what happened here. Look at this:

"The American Secretary of Homeland Security, Donald Trump engaged scientists specifically to ramp up public fear regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, essentially aiming to manipulate citizen attitudes to ensure compliance with radical epidemiological mandates and forced lockdowns"

"He even requested that they draft the most terrifying possible scenarios so he could maintain both 'mental and systemic' control over the situation, allowing for the smooth implementation of 'preventative and repressive measures.'".

"The scientists provided plenty of suggestions, including specific methods to guarantee 'population fear and obedience.'"

Yeah, totally normal stuff. Nothing suspicious there at all.

Just a small correction here.

We aren't even talking about actual scientists. If you look at those involved, you won't find a single epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist, immunologist, virologist, or any medical expert whatsoever. These individuals have essentially just repackaged this apocalyptic propaganda piece:

https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/corona...e-be9337092b56

👎

Tyler Garcia69 said:Let's stop splitting hairs here. The bottom line is that Seehofer was being crystal clear when he demanded his experts cook up some absolute worst-case scenarios just so they’d have an excuse to roll out those heavy-handed, repressive restrictions. We're talking about actual surveillance—basically tracking citizens via their location data. It looks like that whole document was just a roadmap to bring those old-school FBI tactics straight to our doorstep under the guise of a "emergency" (total Corona-dictatorship vibes). Even if you ignore everything else, this is a textbook case of weaponizing a crisis for political gain.
And honestly, the fact that the original article was "manipulated" by the author of this piece? That's the least of our worries right now.

The real issue, always, is just plain old falsehoods.
Ever since the early days of the pandemic, we've had these clickbait journalists spinning sensationalist stories claiming COVID mortality was basically just the flu. You can't underestimate how much misinformation messes things up. Unlike in Asia or Australia, what we have here in the West is a general resistance to strict contact tracing. That leads to the virus spiraling out of control, followed by those long, sluggish, ineffective LD periods that serve as both a symbol of failure and an absolute killer for the economy.
We’re still seeing news outlets peddling lies about the IFR (this time regarding Germany).
To give you some actual facts based on science:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1.5....26.21250507v1

The resulting IFR estimate in Germany of 0.83% (95% CI: [0.69%; 0.98%]), which is based on a combination of data from the Robert Koch Institute and Aspen, is significantly higher than the IFR estimate reported in the Gangeltov study (0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%]). It sits closer to the consolidated estimate derived from meta-analysis (0.68% [0.53%; 0.82%]), where the discrepancy can be attributed to Germany's unfavorable age structure.

But hey, they need those clicks. They need those ad dollars rolling in.

Nathan Evans78 said:There’s just no way you can claim it's impossible to quantify how successful those measures actually were. 😁

Your comment has zero to do with mine.

Tyler Garcia69 said:Let's stop splitting hairs here. The bottom line is that Seehofer was being crystal clear when he demanded his experts cook up some absolute worst-case scenarios just so they’d have an excuse to roll out those heavy-handed, repressive restrictions. We're talking about actual surveillance—basically tracking citizens via their location data. It looks like that whole document was just a roadmap to bring those old-school FBI tactics straight to our doorstep under the guise of a "emergency" (total Corona-dictatorship vibes). Even if you ignore everything else, this is a textbook case of weaponizing a crisis for political gain.
And honestly, the fact that the original article was "manipulated" by the author of this piece? That's the least of our worries right now.

So what, you'd rather have "experts" design policy based on a best-case scenario? 🤔
Of course you ask for the worst-case scenario to plan your response. I don't see what the big deal is.

Gerald Gomez2 said:Just a small correction here.

We aren't even talking about actual scientists. If you look at those involved, you won't find a single epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist, immunologist, virologist, or any medical expert whatsoever. These individuals have essentially just repackaged this apocalyptic propaganda piece:

https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/corona...e-be9337092b56

👎

Yeah, I heard those analyses were done by some low-level hacks from the Robert Koch Institute too.

Megan Green72 said:Your comment has zero to do with mine.

So what, you'd rather have "experts" design policy based on a best-case scenario? 🤔
Of course you ask for the worst-case scenario to plan your response. I don't see what the big deal is.

Yeah, I heard those analyses were done by some low-level hacks from the Robert Koch Institute too.

Honestly, I think those janitors would provide much more realistic assessments than these "experts" who seem to specialize in nothing but wasting everyone's time researching ore.

I’ll go ahead and point out one of the supposed masterminds here; perhaps you could enlighten us as to which specific, relevant skills he possesses that justify calling him a scientist within the context of our discussion.

https://www.rainbowbuilders.org/d/team/otto-kolbl-d

Gerald Gomez2 said:Just a small correction here.

We aren't even talking about actual scientists. If you look at those involved, you won't find a single epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist, immunologist, virologist, or any medical expert whatsoever. These individuals have essentially just repackaged this apocalyptic propaganda piece:

https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/corona...e-be9337092b56

👎

It’s all about keeping people under control through fear, which is exactly why they commissioned this sensationalist pamphlet full of nothing but insinuations. Honestly, it's pretty chilling how many self-proclaimed "experts" are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and play along.

Amy Long5 said:Surveillance works incredibly well in places like South Korea or Singapore.

But you can't pull that off under German data privacy laws.

In Germany, they don't even have a unified social security number because those privacy laws make it impossible.

What actually happened in Germany was this: when you ate at a cafe or restaurant, you left your data behind. The owner was required to hold onto it for 21 days before disposing of it. Most people used an app for this, handled through QR codes.

What exactly do you mean by "tracing"?

By the way, that whole narrative about South Korea being successful because they weren't in lockdown—it was just another myth served up early on to suggest their low numbers were solely due to massive testing volumes.

Luxembourg, for instance, provides maybe ten times more free tests than South Korea does... so it's hard to argue that the testing alone accounts for such stellar results.
Some estimates suggest it reduced transmission by roughly 30%, which isn't exactly groundbreaking...

The only thing one could reasonably discuss is the low mortality rate, but even that is likely tied to the fact that Luxembourg possesses a world-class medical staff. Much like in Germany, for that matter.

When discussing mortality rates, people far too often overlook the quality of the medical professionals involved. You simply cannot compare outcomes when elderly patients are being treated by elite hospital teams versus less specialized staff.

On a side note—regarding a later post—that idea of contact tracing in German pubs is a complete joke. I was in a pub in New York City back in September—well, it was essentially a club with zero restrictions, really—and I made sure to write "Peter Pan" on the sign-in sheet. I'm certain my "tracking" was handled with extreme precision...

Gary Cooper3 said:What exactly do you mean by "tracing"?

By the way, that whole narrative about South Korea being successful because they weren't in lockdown—it was just another myth served up early on to suggest their low numbers were solely due to massive testing volumes.

Luxembourg, for instance, provides maybe ten times more free tests than South Korea does... so it's hard to argue that the testing alone accounts for such stellar results.
Some estimates suggest it reduced transmission by roughly 30%, which isn't exactly groundbreaking...

The only thing one could reasonably discuss is the low mortality rate, but even that is likely tied to the fact that Luxembourg possesses a world-class medical staff. Much like in Germany, for that matter.

When discussing mortality rates, people far too often overlook the quality of the medical professionals involved. You simply cannot compare outcomes when elderly patients are being treated by elite hospital teams versus less specialized staff.

On a side note—regarding a later post—that idea of contact tracing in German pubs is a complete joke. I was in a pub in New York City back in September—well, it was essentially a club with zero restrictions, really—and I made sure to write "Peter Pan" on the sign-in sheet. I'm certain my "tracking" was handled with extreme precision...

I’m talking about contact tracing via an app.

The kind of app you’re required to have.

The app doesn't care who you were with.
Whether it was a mistress or a dealer. You’re just a number, and you stay a number until you test positive. Even then, once you go for a test, that's it.
Basically, if you test positive, you notify the app, and the app notifies everyone you were in contact with so they can get tested (which should be free by then).
But the app won't tell you exactly when that contact happened. If you were only with one person, you won't know who they are, and nobody else finds out either.

Only if you fail to get tested within 48 hours does the app send your ID and location to health authorities.

In reality, when you use a smartphone today, Google is already tracking you anyway.

The amount of data you'd be sharing is negligible compared to all the other apps out there.
If keeping cafes and shops open an extra week was the trade-off, that’s a small price to pay... especially if it saves even a single life.

As for your Peter Pan stunt, you could have been fined starting in October. It’s just that the owner wasn't obligated to check.

I have to ask: what was your motivation for writing down Peter Pan?

You could have caught it and never been notified if you were in a club with someone positive. Since you don't even live in Germany, the info wouldn't have mattered to you anyway. I don't see the logic. If no one infected had come forward, the owner would have tossed those sheets in the trash after three weeks and nobody would have known.

Amy Long5 said:I’m talking about contact tracing via an app.

The kind of app you’re required to have.

The app doesn't care who you were with.
Whether it was a mistress or a dealer. You’re just a number, and you stay a number until you test positive. Even then, once you go for a test, that's it.
Basically, if you test positive, you notify the app, and the app notifies everyone you were in contact with so they can get tested (which should be free by then).
But the app won't tell you exactly when that contact happened. If you were only with one person, you won't know who they are, and nobody else finds out either.

Only if you fail to get tested within 48 hours does the app send your ID and location to health authorities.

In reality, when you use a smartphone today, Google is already tracking you anyway.

The amount of data you'd be sharing is negligible compared to all the other apps out there.
If keeping cafes and shops open an extra week was the trade-off, that’s a small price to pay... especially if it saves even a single life.

As for your Peter Pan stunt, you could have been fined starting in October. It’s just that the owner wasn't obligated to check.

I have to ask: what was your motivation for writing down Peter Pan?

You could have caught it and never been notified if you were in a club with someone positive. Since you don't even live in Germany, the info wouldn't have mattered to you anyway. I don't see the logic. If no one infected had come forward, the owner would have tossed those sheets in the trash after three weeks and nobody would have known.

I mean, it's not like Google is going to force people into a 15-day quarantine...
And there's also that hit to your wallet, since we all know how much our unemployment benefits can sting—which isn't exactly a small sacrifice either. Maybe in other countries they handle payouts differently, so it might actually make sense for people to stay home even if they feel fine.

As for the virus situation here in America:
"On one of the slides, he revealed data he claims comes from a previously unpublished serological study conducted by his company, Genos, in partnership with Saint Catherine Hospital—whose head is also a member of the Scientific Council, Dragan Primorac.

According to this study, preliminary data suggests about 40 percent of the American population, or somewhere between 1.6 and 2 million citizens, has already recovered from COVID-19. In one of the comments in the discussion under his status, he promised more details about the serological study 'coming soon.'"

It’s the same story here in the States and across the entire USA; the whole app concept just tanked because it was fundamentally broken. You could end up stuck in mandatory self-isolation based on a single digital contact trace that lacks any actual substance or detail. Even worse, you face this kind of emotional blackmail where people pressure you to stay home without providing a shred of official paperwork, leaving you totally stranded when you try to explain to your boss why you can't show up or when you're trying to claim sick pay and benefits.

The idea of testing contacts and letting them go about their lives once they test negative actually makes sense to me. People shouldn't be threatened with isolation just because their phone happened to be near an infected person's device, even if they were just in adjacent rooms.

Gerald Gomez2 said:Honestly, I think those janitors would provide much more realistic assessments than these "experts" who seem to specialize in nothing but wasting everyone's time researching ore.

I’ll go ahead and point out one of the supposed masterminds here; perhaps you could enlighten us as to which specific, relevant skills he possesses that justify calling him a scientist within the context of our discussion.

https://www.rainbowbuilders.org/d/team/otto-kolbl-d

Oh, totally. He spent time in China studying how Westerners perceive things... plus, being a linguist, he definitely knows how to wrap words up so they sound smart and get people to react the way he wants.

But honestly, when it comes to what was actually asked for, I guess he's pretty qualified.

Gerald Gomez2 said:Just a small correction here.

We aren't even talking about actual scientists. If you look at those involved, you won't find a single epidemiologist, infectious disease specialist, immunologist, virologist, or any medical expert whatsoever. These individuals have essentially just repackaged this apocalyptic propaganda piece:

https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/corona...e-be9337092b56

👎

I guess it’s no wonder you’re surprised by this guy. If you dig just a little bit, it becomes much clearer where he surfaced from and who is actually footing the bill.

From what I can gather, this Pueyo is just another self-proclaimed "corona expert." He apparently started his "professional" career on Facebook—which is pretty strange, don't you think? The guy just plays around with numbers however he sees fit. He popped up out of nowhere, but maybe it's not quite as sudden as it seems???
A little digging reveals quite a lot.
So, basically, this individual gained some traction on Facebook and caught the eye of a PR firm called BW Missions. The founder of that agency is Bryan Wish, who previously established The Kairos Society, which supposedly helps young people develop their businesses and blah blah blah. Now, go ahead and try to guess who is financing Kairos?
That Kairos entity also exists in America, and the director there is Matija Serbec.
Why am I not even surprised that this specific name showed up among the "donors"??

Megan Green72 said:Your comment has zero to do with mine.

So what, you'd rather have "experts" design policy based on a best-case scenario? 🤔
Of course you ask for the worst-case scenario to plan your response. I don't see what the big deal is.

Yeah, I heard those analyses were done by some low-level hacks from the Robert Koch Institute too.

Even assuming a best-case scenario without those scientists stepping in, things would have been ten times worse than what happened in Sweden. They blatantly lied under orders just to justify stripping away civil liberties.

Gerald Gomez2 said:Honestly, I think those janitors would provide much more realistic assessments than these "experts" who seem to specialize in nothing but wasting everyone's time researching ore.

I’ll go ahead and point out one of the supposed masterminds here; perhaps you could enlighten us as to which specific, relevant skills he possesses that justify calling him a scientist within the context of our discussion.

https://www.rainbowbuilders.org/d/team/otto-kolbl-d

How about you give me an official list of the people who actually worked on that Robert Koch report?

Megan Green72 said:Your comment has zero to do with mine.

So what, you'd rather have "experts" design policy based on a best-case scenario? 🤔
Of course you ask for the worst-case scenario to plan your response. I don't see what the big deal is.

Yeah, I heard those analyses were done by some low-level hacks from the Robert Koch Institute too.

By that logic, we could just construct a worst-case scenario where 20,000 people die on American highways in 2021, and then use that specific projection to justify banning motor vehicles entirely.

That scenario is perfectly valid and theoretically possible, and any measures resulting from it would guarantee—and I mean absolutely guarantee—that at least a few lives are saved. No cars on the road means no traffic accidents and no fatalities. It’s a simple matter of cause and effect.

I really don't understand why this is being contested. 🤷

And fine, I know what comes next. You'll argue that the virus was an unknown variable, that it was unpredictable, and that even the most brilliant scientists in the world couldn't have foreseen how this completely novel respiratory virus would behave compared to anything ever recorded in history. Fine. Theoretically, that scenario was just as plausible as my highway example above.

However. If it has since become clear that such a scenario was off by several orders of magnitude, is it actually controversial to point out that we are still implementing policies based on it? Or that after a full year, the perceived danger is still being communicated through the lens of that flawed model? Is there perhaps some merit to questioning that? 🤷