It seems that the Wuhan virus's risks have been grossly exaggerated

American Thinker

August 31, 2020

It seems that the Wuhan virus’s risks have been grossly exaggerated

By Andrea Widburg


Without the Wuhan virus, the Democrats have no meaningful opposition to Trump. Not only have the Democrats weaponized the Wuhan virus to destroy the economies under their aegis, but they’ve also repeatedly claimed that Trump killed 161,000 Americans. However, new CDC data show that, of those Americans who died in the past seven months, only 6% died from the virus alone. The other 94% had serious comorbidities that (sadly) put them at a higher risk of death from anything that came along — and certainly from having sick people funneled into their nursing homes.

Bronson Stocking has [broken down the CDC’s data]


I have known for a while this is a weak virus, hardly hills anyone on its own.

1 Like

What is the “Wuhan” virus? Sorry. I rarely listen to the news.

That’s what you get when you join the Wu-Tang Clan. LOLLL

1 Like

Covid-19 originated in Wuhan China…thus the “Wuhan virus.”



By that logic, if someone is shot, it’s not the bullet that kills them, it’s the blood loss?

Or if I push a person off a tall building, it wasn’t the push that killed them, it was the sudden stop at the end.

look the fact is that deaths spiked much higher than average once CV-19 became widespread. Without CV-19 the death rate would have been similar to last year.

The yellow line below is boundary between what is considered normal and above average. We can see that CV-19 lead directly or indirectly to a spike in deaths. Remember that people had the same underlying conditions last year but 200,000 fewer people died over a similar time.

Now, I won’t dump all the the blame on Trump, though his lack of a consistent message, promoting dubious “cures” and claiming that it would go away all contributed to making things worse.

Look at this graph of deaths per million for various countries. The countries that widely used hydroxychloroquine early have much lower death rates than those that limited early use. See the graph at cqtrial dot com.

If President Trump had fired that little weasel Fauci and twisted the FDA’s arm, or whoever decides, to sell hydroxychloroquine over the counter, we would have had a lot less deaths.

1 Like

You have completely misunderstood the post one article, could it because you didn’t read it?

I notice I forgot to post the LINK

That would include how infectious it is.

“1 virus infecting you” was possible but not likely. Most people needed a constant stream of exposure to get infected.

Now you are reduced to a babble, the article makes clear the virus by itself is weak, less than 10,000 died from it out of a 230 Million population base.

You didn’t read the article, try not to maintain ignorance.

Claiming one virus particle was a serious infection source was babble.

Now that you’re saying the virus is weak, you can’t defend that talking point.

The virus, for most people, needed constant, recurring exposure. That’s part to why infections died off in warm weather. More people outside in ventilated air.

Sorry, CSB, but you’re obviously a moron. But, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re a “first-class” moron. We’ve been told for months that Covid-19 is a “deadly virus.” No it’s not. The VAST number of people who contract it survive with no worse symptoms than they’d have with a bad cold.

1 Like


Now the excuses flows, you are in denial of how few people the virus can kill on its own.

That is the reality you are in conflict with.

1 Like

I read it, but I have a question…

From the article, we see this:

What the Wuhan virus did was attack people who were already at high risk — which is what all viruses do. In ordinary times, we deal with that problem by sequestering high-risk people.

And sure that makes sense if people are at higher risk they should take all the precautions.

Here’s the problem I’m hoping you have an answer.

How do you isolate the vulnerable without exposing them to less vulnerable people? And if little effort it made to contain the virus among those that are less vulnerable, the virus would spread farther and faster taxing our healthcare system, even for those under 50. My point is, most people that work in nursing homes would fall into the less vulnerable group. How do you keep them from going home, contracting the virus and spreading it to more vulnerable people?

The virus can incubate and be infectious days even a week before a person shows symptoms. Now, that said, if the government had enacted a plan to test as many people as possible and contact tracing with other precautions such as masks in vulnerable areas, maybe that might have worked.

But our testing level was mediocre at best, contact tracing was non-existent and, obviously, mask-wearing and recommendations to do so have been mixed (more of a shotgun approach).

If I get a third degree burn on my hand, I think you’d agree it’s not that big a deal. But if I had one all over my body it is.

Similarly, the virus in most individuals isn’t deadly, but if you spread it across a large swath of the population, it is.

In other words, if the virus has a combined 1% morbidity rate, that’s a 1-100 chance that a random person would die from it (I say random because the rate is much lower in some people and much higher in others). But if you spread it across 100 million people, 100,000 people that are going to die that wouldn’t have died at the same moment if they hadn’t contracted the virus.

100,000 deaths (in my hypothetical) is much worse than a bad cold. And indeed the projected number of deaths before years end related to CV-19 will be 300,000 and my death chart shows that the numbers to this point are consistent regardless of any attempt to fudge the data. You can’t lie about the number of people that die. That would be extremely easy to uncover.

The point of my death chart is to show that all the people that have underlying conditions didn’t die last year or the year before (though in 2018 we had an uptick thanks to a particularly virulent flu) they died this year because they got a virus that is, according to you “no worse than a bad cold”. If that’s true, why have so may people died this year that survived last year?

Except this virus has nowhere NEAR a 1% morbidity rate. It’s actually somewhere around .04% or 4x100ths of 1 percent. That’s vanishingly small.

1 Like

If the flu is .02% then corona is 100% greater morbidity. Now add the transmission rate that is higher because of the asymptomatic incubation period and the fact that it’s more likely to spread and you get more deaths.

What sort of double talk nonsense is that.

And yet, every year you don’t give a flying fuck about any of this stuff when 60,000 people die EVERY year from the flu. No masks, no social distancing, nothing. 60k deaths a year are all good. Why? Because Trump is not running for president during those times.

Right you hypocrite?

Fuck masks and fuck you and fuck your fascist Democrats for making healthy people wear them. Fuck you and your ilk for destroying business and lives and the economy and spreading fear all because you suffer from TDS like the liar you are.


Facts have no place in the Fascist World of CBrownshirt

If you’re going to say the virus is weak, claiming it was highly infectious doesn’t make sense.

It’s one or the other, you can’t have both Tommy.