Should we bring back lockdowns?

Megan Green72 said:Basically, the absolute worst-case scenario didn't even happen—probably thanks to the lockdowns—but they were making calls before anyone actually knew what was going on with COVID-19. And then someone had the genius idea to build their entire strategy around that nightmare scenario.
I don't know, isn't that just bad math? You're supposed to plan for the best-case scenario, right?

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.

Gary Cooper3 said:Honestly, more than anything else, I have to ask: are you doing okay? Seriously, what is going on here?

The group was busy picking mortality rates as if they were choosing flavors of ice cream—trying to be all "scientific" about it, of course.

I see most of you don't even recall that back when things felt truly terrifying, Merkel actually stated that 70 to 80 percent of the population would end up infected. Now, obviously, that has absolutely nothing to do with these emails we're seeing.

Like I’ve said before, I’m the first person who doesn't want to buy into conspiracy theories, but Merkel, Macron, and the rest of that crowd are genuinely—and I mean truly—doing everything in their power to scrutinize and dismiss every single theory being floated right now. If someone tries to link COVID-19 to an earthquake today, they realistically could... It has gone so far, and it isn't just the internet driving this madness, it's the politicians themselves.

Just yesterday, there was a statement in the news claiming that 180,000 people under the age of 60 would die if lockdowns aren't implemented. I mean, what is that supposed to mean? Where does that number come from, and what kind of mortality rate are they basing it on? Unless I’ve completely lost my mind, there aren't a billion people under 60 living in Germany...

Please, just find where Merkel actually said 70-80% of the population would be infected. And do it without using some fake index or a twisted translation.

There is a massive difference between saying "it will happen" and saying "if we don't take action, it COULD reach."

And there's also a difference between 60-70% and 70-80%.

But that's how news gets reported, I suppose.
Didn't you report me once because I got a fact wrong?

So, what happens now?

You missed the mark yourself...

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/germany-news.html

Amy Long5 said:Please, just find where Merkel actually said 70-80% of the population would be infected. And do it without using some fake index or a twisted translation.

There is a massive difference between saying "it will happen" and saying "if we don't take action, it COULD reach."

And there's also a difference between 60-70% and 70-80%.

But that's how news gets reported, I suppose.
Didn't you report me once because I got a fact wrong?

So, what happens now?

You missed the mark yourself...

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/germany-news.html

So I was reading this thing about how cats are basically just tiny, furry sociopaths that happen to live in our houses, and honestly, it’s kind of hard to argue with them. Apparently, there’s some scientific backing to the idea that they aren't just being cute when they ignore you—they’re actually just calculating their next move while judging your entire existence from across the room. It reminds me of my old roommate back in Chicago who used to stare at me with this same blank, unbothered expression every time I’d stumble in late from a shift; you could tell they were just waiting for you to leave so they could reclaim the space. It’s a weirdly accurate look at how much control these little creatures actually have over us without even trying.

Henry Lopez15 said:LEAKED EMAILS
A German minister reportedly pressured scientists to manufacture worst-case scenarios just to justify lockdowns
The researchers complied with ease, even offering specific strategies to ensure "public fear and obedience."

It is clear that our own American scientists were far from idle, particularly those working under German influence.

Don't take this personally, but while your quote from The New York Times is spot on, I think it would be really interesting to hear the actual reasoning behind that article from the author himself—Gojko Veleum drljača. Gojko Veleum drljača Hey Gojko Veleum drljača, where exactly in the original Wall Street Journal piece did you see those words "fear and obedience"? 🤔

Look, Drljačica is entitled to his own take on the article. At the end of the day, he’s basically just regurgitating the piece anyway, so he can interpret it however he wants, but... Creativity is such an interesting thing to wrap your head around. I was thinking about it earlier today—how some people seem to have this endless fountain of ideas flowing out of them, while others feel like they’re staring at a blank wall no matter how hard they try. It isn't just about being "good at art," either. That’s a common misconception. To me, creativity is really more about how you approach problems and how you connect dots that other people don't even see. It's almost like a muscle. You can't just expect it to work perfectly if you haven't given it any exercise. I've always felt that the best way to spark something new isn't by sitting around waiting for a lightning bolt to strike, but by just staying curious about everything. Read a random book, take a different route home through Chicago, or listen to a podcast about something you know absolutely nothing about. I honestly believe that true creativity comes from a place of being comfortable with being wrong. If you're too afraid of looking foolish or making a mess, you'll never actually build anything original. You have to be willing to embrace the chaos a little bit. It's a quiet, steady process of trial and error, much like building a business or mastering a craft. Just stay curious, keep experimenting, and eventually, the pieces start to fit together. Putting that in quotation marks really suggests a very specific kind of attitude. specific It all comes down to how we actually apply the principles of journalistic ethics in the real world.

Amy Long5 said:Please, just find where Merkel actually said 70-80% of the population would be infected. And do it without using some fake index or a twisted translation.

There is a massive difference between saying "it will happen" and saying "if we don't take action, it COULD reach."

And there's also a difference between 60-70% and 70-80%.

But that's how news gets reported, I suppose.
Didn't you report me once because I got a fact wrong?

So, what happens now?

You missed the mark yourself...

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/germany-news.html

I have no qualms about admitting that I’ve been played—so, because of that, I am going to lay it all out here:
The latest report from the New York Post—which, frankly, I find to be predictably sensationalist—is making quite a stir regarding the current political climate here in the States. They are digging deep into the recent policy shifts, attempting to paint a picture of chaos that feels more like a scripted drama than actual governance. It’s the usual fare: high-octane headlines designed to trigger an immediate emotional response before you've even had your first cup of coffee... One can't help but notice how the media cycle continues to feed on its own tail. The article attempts to link several disparate legislative movements as if they were part of some grand, coordinated scheme, rather than what they actually are—a messy, often incoherent scramble for relevance by various factions in D.C. It's almost impressive, in a cynical sort of way, how they manage to weave such a convoluted narrative out of thin air... I suppose if you're looking for a reason to feel outraged about the direction of our national institutions, this provides plenty of fuel. But for those of us who prefer to look at the data—the actual, verifiable substance behind the rhetoric—it all starts to look a bit hollow. It’s less about informing the public and more about maintaining a state of perpetual agitation... which, given the current landscape, seems to be working perfectly fine for them.

To be fair to Index—though their headline was a bit much—they’re essentially pulling the same kind of clickbait tactics you see from the New York Post. The headline itself implies one thing, which is exactly what they want you to think... but if you actually take the time to read the article, the substance is something else entirely.

It doesn't matter—the fundamental point remains that trying to scare people into submission through lockdowns doesn't actually change the underlying reality... It’s the same old playbook: "If we don't shut everything down, everyone will get infected," followed by the inevitable claim that millions will perish—assuming, of course, you factor in anyone over the age of 60 into those grim projections. To me, it all feels like nothing more than a collection of terrifying falsehoods...

What scares me most is this relentless intimidation regarding the mortality rates of the virus. To be perfectly blunt—they still haven’t produced any serious, definitive assessments of the actual death toll... nobody has, really, save perhaps the top-tier epidemiologists over at Stanford. But apparently, those geniuses at Stanford—the very same people who demonstrated that these extreme measures were largely pointless—are being completely ignored by the masses...

bluerider63 said:So I was reading this thing about how cats are basically just tiny, furry sociopaths that happen to live in our houses, and honestly, it’s kind of hard to argue with them. Apparently, there’s some scientific backing to the idea that they aren't just being cute when they ignore you—they’re actually just calculating their next move while judging your entire existence from across the room. It reminds me of my old roommate back in Chicago who used to stare at me with this same blank, unbothered expression every time I’d stumble in late from a shift; you could tell they were just waiting for you to leave so they could reclaim the space. It’s a weirdly accurate look at how much control these little creatures actually have over us without even trying.

Where on earth did you dig up that infamous Flat Earth, anti-vax conspiracy site?? Don't you realize we don't count that kind of junk here? I’m asking you nicely—please stick to verified sources like FactCheck.org, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or things of that caliber.
Now, get ready for the next attempt at a bad spin: "Oh, she didn't say 70-80%, she actually said 60-70%."

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.

Look, you're the only one actually calling this out. Everyone else is just following the lead of Gojko drljača, who basically wrote that pseudo-prescriptive piece over at The New York Times. If you look at the original source in The Wall Street Journal, it doesn't even contain half of those truly alarming and unsettling ideas that you're correctly citing from JL.

Don't fall for it—don't let yourself become another victim of Gojko drljača's panic-driven spin cycles. 🙂

bluerider63 said:So I was reading this thing about how cats are basically just tiny, furry sociopaths that happen to live in our houses, and honestly, it’s kind of hard to argue with them. Apparently, there’s some scientific backing to the idea that they aren't just being cute when they ignore you—they’re actually just calculating their next move while judging your entire existence from across the room. It reminds me of my old roommate back in Chicago who used to stare at me with this same blank, unbothered expression every time I’d stumble in late from a shift; you could tell they were just waiting for you to leave so they could reclaim the space. It’s a weirdly accurate look at how much control these little creatures actually have over us without even trying.

You honestly don't see the difference?

You aren't reading what others are saying, nor are you actually reading the article you linked.

It COULD have been 60-70%.

Gary Cooper3 claims she said she would say, "70-80% will be infected."

Compare that to: "I might transfer $6,000-$7,000 to your account in 2022" versus "I will transfer $7,000-$8,000 to your account in 2022." Do you see the distinction now?

Amy Long5 said:You honestly don't see the difference?

You aren't reading what others are saying, nor are you actually reading the article you linked.

It COULD have been 60-70%.

Gary Cooper3 claims she said she would say, "70-80% will be infected."

Compare that to: "I might transfer $6,000-$7,000 to your account in 2022" versus "I will transfer $7,000-$8,000 to your account in 2022." Do you see the distinction now?

We can sit here all day playing semantics with "could be" versus "will be" and trying to guess exactly what Merkelica meant or intended, but the point is that we finally have a look under the hood at the scare tactics they're using just to keep these kinds of restrictions in place.

electricorca112 said:Look, you're the only one actually calling this out. Everyone else is just following the lead of Gojko drljača, who basically wrote that pseudo-prescriptive piece over at The New York Times. If you look at the original source in The Wall Street Journal, it doesn't even contain half of those truly alarming and unsettling ideas that you're correctly citing from JL.

Don't fall for it—don't let yourself become another victim of Gojko drljača's panic-driven spin cycles. 🙂

Could you please drop a link to the actual article?
And maybe send it over to my email too.
Oh, and I'd love to see your take on whether the Secretary actually suggested specific results or opinions he wanted to hear from the scientists.

Gary Cooper3 said:I have no qualms about admitting that I’ve been played—so, because of that, I am going to lay it all out here:
The latest report from the New York Post—which, frankly, I find to be predictably sensationalist—is making quite a stir regarding the current political climate here in the States. They are digging deep into the recent policy shifts, attempting to paint a picture of chaos that feels more like a scripted drama than actual governance. It’s the usual fare: high-octane headlines designed to trigger an immediate emotional response before you've even had your first cup of coffee... One can't help but notice how the media cycle continues to feed on its own tail. The article attempts to link several disparate legislative movements as if they were part of some grand, coordinated scheme, rather than what they actually are—a messy, often incoherent scramble for relevance by various factions in D.C. It's almost impressive, in a cynical sort of way, how they manage to weave such a convoluted narrative out of thin air... I suppose if you're looking for a reason to feel outraged about the direction of our national institutions, this provides plenty of fuel. But for those of us who prefer to look at the data—the actual, verifiable substance behind the rhetoric—it all starts to look a bit hollow. It’s less about informing the public and more about maintaining a state of perpetual agitation... which, given the current landscape, seems to be working perfectly fine for them.

To be fair to Index—though their headline was a bit much—they’re essentially pulling the same kind of clickbait tactics you see from the New York Post. The headline itself implies one thing, which is exactly what they want you to think... but if you actually take the time to read the article, the substance is something else entirely.

It doesn't matter—the fundamental point remains that trying to scare people into submission through lockdowns doesn't actually change the underlying reality... It’s the same old playbook: "If we don't shut everything down, everyone will get infected," followed by the inevitable claim that millions will perish—assuming, of course, you factor in anyone over the age of 60 into those grim projections. To me, it all feels like nothing more than a collection of terrifying falsehoods...

What scares me most is this relentless intimidation regarding the mortality rates of the virus. To be perfectly blunt—they still haven’t produced any serious, definitive assessments of the actual death toll... nobody has, really, save perhaps the top-tier epidemiologists over at Stanford. But apparently, those geniuses at Stanford—the very same people who demonstrated that these extreme measures were largely pointless—are being completely ignored by the masses...

So who is actually doing the scaring? Is it the politicians saying "it could be as high as," or is it the clickbait tabloids manufacturing sensations just to drive traffic?

Even Angela Merkel suggested that maybe 80% of people would breeze through the infection without even noticing. Again, it's all "maybe."

Or maybe you're part of that other 10%...

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.

That sounds like nothing more than some journalist's conclusion trying to be sensationalist. Unless we have an actual quote from a specific email explicitly mentioning ramping up fear? 🤔

bluerider63 said:We can sit here all day playing semantics with "could be" versus "will be" and trying to guess exactly what Merkelica meant or intended, but the point is that we finally have a look under the hood at the scare tactics they're using just to keep these kinds of restrictions in place.

It's pathetic how you guys turn everything into "it might be" or "it could be"—it's just semantics to cover up your own mental gymnastics.

bluerider63 said:We can sit here all day playing semantics with "could be" versus "will be" and trying to guess exactly what Merkelica meant or intended, but the point is that we finally have a look under the hood at the scare tactics they're using just to keep these kinds of restrictions in place.

The problem is you don't grasp the nuance. You haven't even bothered to read what The New York Times is actually quoting in that article.

There's a link in the NYT piece; go read the original source in The Wall Street Journal yourself.

It's a translation issue. It's like if someone asks you a vulgar question and you give an answer that implies one thing, but then some third party reports it as something else entirely. Everyone knows what was really being said.

Pure clickbait.

Amy Long5 said:The problem is you don't grasp the nuance. You haven't even bothered to read what The New York Times is actually quoting in that article.

There's a link in the NYT piece; go read the original source in The Wall Street Journal yourself.

It's a translation issue. It's like if someone asks you a vulgar question and you give an answer that implies one thing, but then some third party reports it as something else entirely. Everyone knows what was really being said.

Pure clickbait.

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...ftler-ein.html

Which part of this is actually problematic or supports that whole "they're just stalling" theory? 😁

They were asked to run the numbers on a worst-case scenario where over a million people might die, just so they could justify slapping everyone with lockdowns and heavy restrictions. If that isn't straight-up manipulation, I don't know what is.

That group of lawyers who hunted down those private emails just to leak them should be suing every single person involved for fear-mongering and inciting mass panic.

nimblesurfer17 said:I wouldn't say that's the specific article the thug was talking about.
He was likely looking at this one instead:
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...inspannte.html
It actually includes snippets of the emails.
And a whole lot of other stuff, too.
☕

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. 🤷

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.

It wasn't the Minister; it was the Department Secretary.

Developing various scenarios is standard procedure for advisors. Politicians make the final call on which ones to implement.

And it’s clearly stated in The Wall Street Journal that the "worst-case scenario" involved over a million deaths, whereas the New York Post claims it was "a few million."

Funny how the New York Post exaggerated the numbers way more than the actual source link does.

As I’ve already pointed out to this group, Macan and Djikic had an exchange where Djikic essentially went on the record admitting they intentionally manipulated the narrative during the early stages of the pandemic—all under the guise that "people were overreacting." It was the exact same logic used to justify lying about the mask shortage, claiming we just "didn't have enough" at the time...

So, it turns out that the blatant lies and manipulations coming from these scientists—these supposed "experts"—isn't some new conspiracy theory they've been hiding for years. I have the evidence to back it up, naturally.

But that brings us to the real dilemma when you're dealing with the very institutions you’re supposed to turn to for the truth: how on earth are you meant to distinguish between an intentional lie and a simple mistake?
How am I expected to trust anyone in Germany after they claimed that without a lockdown, 180,000 people outside of high-risk groups would perish? What possible purpose does a lie of that magnitude serve?...

nimblesurfer17 said:Could you please drop a link to the actual article?
And maybe send it over to my email too.
Oh, and I'd love to see your take on whether the Secretary actually suggested specific results or opinions he wanted to hear from the scientists.

The article is right here. As for the emails, I’d say whoever was quoting those specific lines should probably provide the link themselves, since they're acting like they've actually read them.

As for me? Not happening. ☕

bluerider63 said:https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...ftler-ein.html

Which part of this is actually problematic or supports that whole "they're just stalling" theory? 😁

They were asked to run the numbers on a worst-case scenario where over a million people might die, just so they could justify slapping everyone with lockdowns and heavy restrictions. If that isn't straight-up manipulation, I don't know what is.

That group of lawyers who hunted down those private emails just to leak them should be suing every single person involved for fear-mongering and inciting mass panic.

Developing multiple scenarios is standard procedure.

Politicians use them as tools, picking whichever one fits their agenda. That’s the job.
They were elected for that purpose; they'll lose power or keep it based on those choices.

The media was flooded with endless expert opinions back when the pandemic first hit.

Let them sue. That's what lawyers do.

As long as they aren't the same ones running around the US collecting settlement money later...

https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfind...orona-119.html

https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/us...co_180315.html

Everything is a business these days. This is no different.

It's like a bus company owner organizing protests against Corona restrictions while still charging passengers for tickets. ;-)

Gary Cooper3 said:As I’ve already pointed out to this group, Macan and Djikic had an exchange where Djikic essentially went on the record admitting they intentionally manipulated the narrative during the early stages of the pandemic—all under the guise that "people were overreacting." It was the exact same logic used to justify lying about the mask shortage, claiming we just "didn't have enough" at the time...

So, it turns out that the blatant lies and manipulations coming from these scientists—these supposed "experts"—isn't some new conspiracy theory they've been hiding for years. I have the evidence to back it up, naturally.

But that brings us to the real dilemma when you're dealing with the very institutions you’re supposed to turn to for the truth: how on earth are you meant to distinguish between an intentional lie and a simple mistake?
How am I expected to trust anyone in Germany after they claimed that without a lockdown, 180,000 people outside of high-risk groups would perish? What possible purpose does a lie of that magnitude serve?...

The beginning is what really matters, though. Once the momentum starts building, there’s no turning back; you're just stuck managing the mess you created.