[Castle2.0]

1. Noted.
2. Noted.

3. The Covid virus is not a natural occurring virus

Actually, it naturally occurs in bats. Maybe it was derived from bats then engineered in a lab, but it most definitely naturally occurs in bats. Interestingly enough, in November of 2019 a Chinese lab was looking for scientists for their lab to specifically study corona virus immunity in bats. I read the site itself in Chinese. Very interesting. Maybe the chicom govt knew about the virus infecting the populace and was trying to recruit more talent to find an answer?

In either case, it's like H1N1, flu, and most viruses we run into in that, yes, it occurs naturally.

and if we can contain it we can kill it and prevent a lot of deaths. The flu also doesnt kill nearly as many, if as many people that got the flu to = 600k deaths, got covid it would be like 6 million deaths.

Corona virus is not going away. We still have people getting H1N1. Zero is an impossible number for this So pursuing 0 as a standard is foolish. Example: "Until we reach zero, we must blahblahblah." Bad idea.

The flu also doesnt kill nearly as many, if as many people that got the flu to = 600k deaths, got covid it would be like 6 million deaths.

I knew COVID IFR (infection fatalty rate) was bogus from the beginning.

IFR = DEATHS / INFECTIONS.

I'll let others debate how many REAL deaths due to COVID, but we can all agree the IFR (especially months ago) was WAY overblown. We had NO idea how widepsread it ways.

My favorite line of thinking from the media was this "It's going everywhere! Be afraid!" Ok, so we should expect a lot of infections, but then they say "It's so deadly! Be afraid!" Deadly as in many deaths per infection and the # of infections they used were simply the # of positive tests when testing wasn't widespread.

Pretty much, they want you to think infections are high when saying how infectious it is, but infections are low when they talk about how deadly it is lol (DEATHS/INFECTIONS.)

Basic math shows their base bias. Stupid people.

So back to my point.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE GOTTEN COVID

What we do know is the more testing we do, the more we see widespread asymptomatic infections. What does this mean? The virus is very widespread and a lots less deadly than we initially thought.

Let's say your assumption is true that masks, lockdown, whatever measures would prevent "a lot of deaths." Then wouldn't it reason that we could cut down the 600,000 flu deaths every year by a substantial margin using the measures you support for COVID?

Which returns to my original question:

If you do support forced-masks and forced-lockdowns for COVID, why didn't you support them for flu? Could we not cut down the 600,000 annual deaths by a significant factor using these measures? If so, why not use them?

When you answer this question, you will mostly likely have answered my question to why I am against forced masks and forced lockdowns, even if I wear masks and practice social distancing myself - I was doing this stuff before it was even politically fashionable.