Would throwing various members of the American populous into fallout shelters help alleviate SARS-CoV-2?

[dennisfrancisblewett]

I'm reading through this: STATE OF WISCONSIN CIVIL DEFENSE NEWS BULLETIN (FEBRUARY 1964)

It argues the following:

Quote

"...The Department of Defense has continuously stressed that no other defense weapon -- neither the present bomber defense nor the potential missile defense -- can be effective without fallout shelters. New Pentagon studies have shown that, even in the worst conceivable kind of attack, fallout shelters of the kind recommended by the federal Office of Civil Defense would save from 25 million to 65 million people, and that the cost of saving these lives through a shelter program would be vastly less than the cost per life saved of any other defensive weapon now known..."

Well, I don't know how many government-funded fallout shelters are in existence, but perhaps there are many more these days (prior to the Office of Civil Defense being shut down). Perhaps the fallout shelters could save 100+ million lives. If so, I think it'd be within society's interest to the use the fallout shelters in an effort to bring down SARS-CoV-2 case count, deaths, etc..

Thoughts?

[dennisfrancisblewett]

17 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

The question is not whether the legal system works, but whether duck duck goose

I am unable to decipher what you hope to relay in your message.

In relation to my first post, I spent some more time thinking about it last night. So, what I started thinking was there are groups of individuals of the demographic of whom are more likely to be transmitters of SARS-CoV-2. Take those people (in however many rounds necessary), and throw them into the nuclear fall-out shelters for, say, two weeks. Then, let them out and bring in the next group of "most-likely-to-be-a-transmitter." I presume the pattern would lead to a quick decline in SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths over time in the United States of America. I presume that a Federal Freedom of Information Act request (one or more) might be used to check the availability of the nuclear fallout shelters and their accessibility. However, there would still be a need to stock-pile the nuclear fallout shelters with food, toiletries, and hygiene goods.

I have been under the presumption that finances acquired from adequately dismissing debts over six years, relative to Federal student loans and the Contracts Disputes Act, would enable to Federal government of the United States of America to do sociological research on whom should go to a shelter, what would be needed for stay, doing psych evals on people and providing psychological conditioning (if necessary) to stay in such shelters [sociological research where applicable], and acquiring the materials for persons to be placed into such fallout shelters.

Based on a reading of "Meat Production and Supply Chain Under COVID-19 Scenario: Current Trends and Future Prospects" (May 2021) by Ijaz, et. al., I've come to the presumption that low-income workers have been taking the jobs of people of whom have been transmitting SARS-CoV-2. As the homeless tend to be of the lowest-income workers around, I consider they've been taking jobs for low pay where others have not, which might make them to be more suspectible to being hosts and transmitters of SARS-CoV-2. As such, I presume that it would be worthwhile to place the homeless population into the nuclear fallout shelters. I suggest, however, sociological research into this, as I might be wrong.

 

Also, I'd like to re-iterate an aspect of the cited material for emphasis on a point made in the original material:

Quote

...even in the worst conceivable kind of attack, fallout shelters of the kind recommended by the federal Office of Civil Defense would save from 25 million to 65 million people, and that the cost of saving these lives through a shelter program would be vastly less than the cost per life saved of any other defensive weapon now known..

 

Let me help narrow that down:

Quote

...the worst conceivable kind of attack...

 

SARS-Cov-2 is pretty bad right now. Perhaps someone might qualify it as an attack by nature itself. Regardless, the situation is bad. Also, those nuclear fallout shelters seem to just be around with no one tapping into them as a resource. I suggest the things I've typed here be researched and discussion about the research and what I have typed occur.

Edited January 7, 2022 by dennisfrancisblewett
Formatting issues

[OceanBreeze]

2 hours ago, dennisfrancisblewett said:

I am unable to decipher what you hope to relay in your message.

Trust me, you are not the only one here who cannot decipher posts made by JeffreysTubes8. For the time being you may find it best to simply put him on ignore. But I am reluctant to suspend his account because sometimes he is able to be lucid.

[dennisfrancisblewett]

22 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Trust me, you are not the only one here who cannot decipher posts made by JeffreysTubes8. For the time being you may find it best to simply put him on ignore. But I am reluctant to suspend his account because sometimes he is able to be lucid.

Regardless, it was nice that I did not have to engage in a double post, as a matter of rhetoric.

 

So, I have an update:

I spent some time thinking about this issue, and I consider there may a huge debate about the Contracts Dispute Act (Title 41 of U.S. Code?) and getting the accounting department of the United States Department of Education to somehow manage to see to it that billions of dollars pop-up for use by the United States government. My estimate was that it would require approximately 100 billion dollars to effectively use the nuclear fallout shelters to get rid of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States of America. Such a dollar amount would not be so bad, considering how much money has been put toward ridding SARS-CoV-2 in the United States of America so far.

Nonetheless, money is still an issue. Thus, I think it would be wise for persons to develop a learning curve to acquire money while engaging in the use of nuclear fallout shelters.

Attached is an image with two curves. One curve is accessing nuclear fallout shelters to place rounds of persons in over time. The other curve is the decrease in SARS-CoV-2 over time. Over time, persons would eventually develop a learning curve in order to increasingly get rid of SARS-CoV-2 while accessing nuclear fallout shelters.

One issue is whether or not the homeless/low-income demographic is necessarily of the best to start placing in such nuclear fallout shelters to help decrease transmission. Perhaps it would be best to grab the demographic that is more prone to infection. I'm not sure. Epidemiologists might have a better grasp on such.

Edited January 8, 2022 by dennisfrancisblewett
Note: A revised attached image has occurred with labels for maximum points.

[Vmedvil2]

21 hours ago, dennisfrancisblewett said:

Regardless, it was nice that I did not have to engage in a double post, as a matter of rhetoric.

 

So, I have an update:

I spent some time thinking about this issue, and I consider there may a huge debate about the Contracts Dispute Act (Title 41 of U.S. Code?) and getting the accounting department of the United States Department of Education to somehow manage to see to it that billions of dollars pop-up for use by the United States government. My estimate was that it would require approximately 100 billion dollars to effectively use the nuclear fallout shelters to get rid of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States of America. Such a dollar amount would not be so bad, considering how much money has been put toward ridding SARS-CoV-2 in the United States of America so far.

Nonetheless, money is still an issue. Thus, I think it would be wise for persons to develop a learning curve to acquire money while engaging in the use of nuclear fallout shelters.

Attached is an image with two curves. One curve is accessing nuclear fallout shelters to place rounds of persons in over time. The other curve is the decrease in SARS-CoV-2 over time. Over time, persons would eventually develop a learning curve in order to increasingly get rid of SARS-CoV-2 while accessing nuclear fallout shelters.

One issue is whether or not the homeless/low-income demographic is necessarily of the best to start placing in such nuclear fallout shelters to help decrease transmission. Perhaps it would be best to grab the demographic that is more prone to infection. I'm not sure. Epidemiologists might have a better grasp on such.

This is retarded, I am sorry but this is just stupid just get vaccinated.

"Based on evidence from clinical trials, in people aged 18 years and older, the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected."

Edited January 9, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[dennisfrancisblewett]

1 hour ago, VictorMedvil said:

This is retarded, I am sorry but this is just stupid just get vaccinated.

"Based on evidence from clinical trials, in people aged 18 years and older, the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected."

It's not retarded because it is an alternative safe-guard in that vaccination is not a fool-proof measure, whereby history alleges that vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 has not been a fool-proof measure. The virus keeps adapting and evolving. Other safeguards have to be considered.

 

In relation to the demographic of whom I think would best be placed in such fallouts first, I suggest those of whom would be the most susceptible to infection. What criteria define such persons, I'm not sure. However, I presume they have (at the least) the ACE2 receptor (binding site) for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Those of whom would be selected last for such fallout shelters would be those of whom are the least susceptible to infection.

 

Furthermore, I've developed a concept of something I call "jail inversion." It comes from my studies of comparing and contrasting the punishment of probation versus incarceration. Presuming a sentence of probation is meant to inflict the same amount of pain and suffering onto an individual of whom has been sentenced with jail, then there would be no significant differences between probation and jail unless there was to be a difference in the length of either punishment. Consider a sentence of probation being handed to a defendant rather than jail. The defendant is to, however, experience the same amount of pain and suffering that would be suffered if the defendant had instead been incarcerated. Thus, somehow, in some way, the pain and suffering that would be experienced in "jail" has been "inverted" and instead becomes experienced during probation (the outside world, the world outside of jail). Thus, such experience would be an experience of "jail inversion."

With fallout shelters, they would be a form of incarceration. However, it is presumed they would be more of a therapeutic incarceration that generates positive outcomes for the individual of whom has been incarcerated, like an all-expenses paid "get well clinic."

Probation officers over-see the process of probation for presumed "jail inversion." Perhaps there are individuals of whom might oversee such "jail inversion" (perhaps better described as "get-well-clinic inversion") for fallout shelters, thus persons not needing to be placed in such in the first place.

 

Collectively, at the maximum point of incarceration with all persons experiencing fallout shelters, it's presumed that the "ransom factor" (a term I learned from Black's Law Diction) to escape SARS-CoV-2 as a virus, will have been paid. Abolition of SARS-CoV-2 would require payment of a ransom factor.

 

As "The individual" approaches "A universe without SARS-CoV-2" and "The individual" approaches "The truth of the matter," then SARS-CoV-2 approaches falsification/abolition/eradication (the ransom factor gets paid).

@ JeffreysTubes8

Don't worry about having to post to prevent me from double posting or the like. If done for such, thank you; but such is not necessary, I think, as there is no rule against double (or more) posting (that I've seen) on this forum.

@ all

Update: Perhaps it would be better to list "A universe without SARS-CoV-2" as "an environment for the individual without SARS-CoV-2."

Edited January 9, 2022 by dennisfrancisblewett

[ArthurSmith]

Incarceration? Really?

[OceanBreeze]

I would not use the word "retarded" but rather I would call it silly. Covid is not the big killer that it has been made out to be. It has been estimated that of all the ("Covid") deaths in the US (over 800,000 now) only about 10% actually died From Covid. The rest died from other causes but because they had a positive test at some point, they are added to the list. Still, 80,000 deaths is something to be taken seriously, but in a population of 330 Million it is nothing to panic about. We have had Flu outbreaks that caused more deaths. About 659,000 people in the United States die from heart disease each year. Maybe we should stop the panic over Covid and place our concern elsewhere?

Edited January 11, 2022 by OceanBreeze

[ArthurSmith]

1 hour ago, OceanBreeze said:

I would not use the word "retarded" but rather I would call it silly. Covid is not the big killer that it has been made out to be. It has been estimated that of all the ("Covid") deaths in the US (over 800,000 now) only about 10% actually died From Covid. The rest died from other causes but because they had a positive test at some point, they are added to the list. Still, 80,000 deaths is something to be taken seriously, but in a population of 330 Million it is nothing to panic about. We have had Flu outbreaks that caused more deaths. About 659,000 people in the United States die from heart disease each year. Maybe we should stop the panic over Covid and place our concern elsewhere?

Who estimated that 90% of deaths recorded as due to Covid are not actually due to Covid? That would be shocking if true. Looking at excess deaths, the opposite is indicated and the death rate is actually higher.

Edited January 11, 2022 by ArthurSmith

[ArthurSmith]

Ah, co-morbidities. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/

For example.

[Vmedvil2]

2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I would not use the word "retarded" but rather I would call it silly. Covid is not the big killer that it has been made out to be. It has been estimated that of all the ("Covid") deaths in the US (over 800,000 now) only about 10% actually died From Covid. The rest died from other causes but because they had a positive test at some point, they are added to the list. Still, 80,000 deaths is something to be taken seriously, but in a population of 330 Million it is nothing to panic about. We have had Flu outbreaks that caused more deaths. About 659,000 people in the United States die from heart disease each year. Maybe we should stop the panic over Covid and place our concern elsewhere?

Well, ya I don't want dennisfrancisblewett to give the government any ideas, "ya, let's lock everyone away in fallout shelters now so they won't get COVID". It sounds like prison to me and I don't want to be in prison for the entire period of the pandemic. It sounds like something the government would do lock everyone in prison to prevent them from getting covid then maybe forget to let you back out after the virus has cleared while still collecting taxes the entire time then sitting in their mansions, smoking cigars, and having hookers do "certain" acts to them.

Edited January 11, 2022 by VictorMedvil

[ArthurSmith]

2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Maybe we should stop the panic over Covid and place our concern elsewhere?

Maybe. But excess deaths, for example:

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

[ArthurSmith]

Another look at excess deaths:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

I guess it depends on who you want to believe, and what their motives are.

According to a study done in Sweden attempted to answer this question:

QUOTE

“The study looks at the cases of 122 people who have died in the region outside of a hospital setting – either at home or in accommodation for the elderly – and whose deaths were attributed to Covid-19. Half of this group were aged 88 or over. Of the 122 cases, 111 were judged to have extensive comorbidities (the presence of one or more additional conditions) and 11 had moderate comorbidities. Not one of those who died, in other words, were in good health. In only 15 per cent of cases was Covid-19 judged to be the direct cause of death. Covid-19 was a contributory cause in 70 per cent of cases, and in the remaining 15 per cent death was judged to have been caused by another underlying cause – most often heart disease.”

UNQUOTE

Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-percent-of-covid-deaths-were-directly-from-covid-

 

There is also this from the CDC, although they have removed it. What are they trying to hide?

QUOTE

Comorbidities

“Table 4 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 7% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.5 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.”

UNQUOTE

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200508214212/https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

 

There are many more sources that back up my claim, but Big Tech removes most of them. Why?

One more:

QUOTE

“Older adults are more likely to get severely ill from COVID-19. More than 81% of COVID-19 deaths occur in people over age 65. The number of deaths among people over age 65 is 80 times higher than the number of deaths among people aged 18-29.

The risk of severe COVID-19 increases as the number of underlying medical conditions increases in a person.

Long-standing systemic health and social inequities have put various groups of people at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19, including many people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities.

Studies have shown people from racial and ethnic minority groups are also dying from COVID-19 at younger ages. People in minority groups are often younger when they develop chronic medical conditions and may be more likely to have more than one condition.

People with disabilities are more likely than those without disabilities to have chronic health conditions, live in congregate settings, and face more barriers to healthcare. Studies have shown that some people with certain disabilities are more likely to get COVID-19 and have worse outcomes.”

UNQUOTE

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html

 

[OceanBreeze]

On 1/12/2022 at 3:17 AM, VictorMedvil said:

Well, ya I don't want dennisfrancisblewett to give the government any ideas, "ya, let's lock everyone away in fallout shelters now so they won't get COVID". It sounds like prison to me and I don't want to be in prison for the entire period of the pandemic. It sounds like something the government would do lock everyone in prison to prevent them from getting covid then maybe forget to let you back out after the virus has cleared while still collecting taxes the entire time then sitting in their mansions, smoking cigars, and having hookers do "certain" acts to them.

I called the idea silly didn't I?

[OceanBreeze]

On 1/12/2022 at 3:33 AM, ArthurSmith said:

Another look at excess deaths:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

 

 

You need to be careful with excess deaths data because the population is growing and there will always be more deaths in the following year. I made a post on this subject after doing some research on how excess deaths are calculated by the CDC.

That post can be found here: https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/37135-dr-carrie-madej-about-transhumanism-covid-19-vaccine-eugenics/?do=findComment&comment=389969

 

[Vmedvil2]

2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I called the idea silly didn't I?

Ocean, I know you are government but when I say government I mean our politicians not the hard working underlings of the government that have to fix all the mistakes our politicians make. I do not envy the jobs of the underlings of the government it must be a literal nightmare.

Edited January 13, 2022 by VictorMedvil