I’ve taken my main article on Covid19 and used it as an introduction to my book as Covid is perhaps the best example in recent history of manufactured mass hysteria. It demonstrates the flimsy associative understanding that people’s understanding it built on. They do what they’re told based on the frequency of the message and the credentials of the sources. They don’t have the ability to look at information and understand it as it relates to the subject, and as the subject relates to their interests. This is why I call people meat puppets, because even beyond Covid, people’s thoughts and understanding are a product of other people’s opinions, and it serves other people’s interests in them accepting those opinions. The following is a brief comment exchange that succinctly addresses the misconceptions that serve as the basis for the public’s understanding of Covid 19.

ABC News 4/2/2020 “3 Members of Same Ohio Family Die of Covid19”.


1st Comment: Orion Simerl: 7500 people die every day in the United States. Most are in the same age range as the people dying Covid19 or have underlying conditions. No matter how many old, sick, and immuniogentic deficient people die of the virus it doesn’t change the fact that it poses no risk of death to healthy people. 3 people dying in the same family 2 of which are highrisk because they’re old and have experienced immuniosenesence, and the third at an age of increased risk, underlines the immuniougenetic factors associated with the risk of mortality. Immuniogenetic means the immune response based on your genes, and immuniosenesence is the weaking of the immune system. If they reported the flu the same way, they could show you the massive spread of infection, where the first hospitalizations were reported in Novemeber. Then those hospitalizations were 20,000 a month later, over 150,000 a month later, 300,000 a month later, and then over half a million now. They could show the rising death toll, which for the flu to this point is 62,000 deaths. ( According to research published in the Lancet Journal of Medicine found the true death toll is actually about.66% ( Of those who have been admitted to ICU 78% have had underlying medical conditions, and of those who have have died, 94% have had underlying medical conditions. ( This bitch on here is going to say “listen to what they’re telling you”. I listen to the data because the data doesn’t have an interest in sensationalizing a flu like virus to attract ratings and earn money. Her knowing people who have died doesn’t put her in a position to provide any insight into the virus. The stupidity of people in this country is astounding.

2nd Comment: Gowon Gang@Orion Simerl “it poses no risk of death to healthy people”

You’re ignoring WAY too many variables. 1) What is a “healthy” person? Some people think they’re healthy but have underlying medical conditions that have never been diagnosed.

2) I’ve already seen articles of perfectly “healthy” people dying from COVID so no one is safe

3) In the US, not everyone has health insurance or even worse, access to a medical clinic within 30 mins-an hour of where they live. What starts as minor could become worse over time for some people simply because they aren’t receiving any antibiotics, advice or treatment to help.

3rd Comment: ​Orion Simerl@Gowon Gang  1: A healthy person is a person who has no diagnoised underlying medical conditions and has experienced nonhospitalizing severe sickness. .1% for people under 45 means 1 out of every 1000 people in that age range, a majority of the country die from Covid19. 1 out of every 1000 is anamoly and suggests an underlying condition, which is confirmed by the analysis of the data which I provided a link that shows 94% of people who died, had an underlying condition. 5500 US deaths, this means 330 people who have died in the US have not had an underlying condition. Given the age of deaths, 80% of people who died were over 65. Of those 330 who didn’t have underlying conditions, 264 have experienced immuniosenesence or have weaker immune systems with age. Of those that died of the virus who were not seniors and did not have medical conditions, 66 supposedly healthy have died. 66 out of 245,000 cases. A healthy person’s chance of dying of the virus are 1 in 3712, or .026%, less than the flu, or essentially 0 when we consider that the bulk of those 66 deaths probably ocurred in the next age group below 55 to 65.

2: Yes some seemingly healthy people die, but it is extremely rare as explained above and does not represent the risk to most people. 160 children have died of the flu since November, enough to put a child on everyday and say this influenza virus is killing children on a daily basis. This is how Covid should be understood to healthy people, as a risk of sickness not a risk of death.

The real risk of mortlality and severe symptoms is 0 and 100%. The virus isn’t different in different people. A virus multiplies and infects cells and the volume of the infection determines the degree of symptoms. Either your immune system can keep up and overwhelm the virus or it cannot. For probably 95% of the population they have 0 risk of dying.

3: It doesn’t matter if people don’t have health insurance, it isn’t a long term health struggle that requres treatment. 80% of reported cases do not require hospitalization. Second, one of the few things Clinton did that benefited people under his adminstration is mandated that hospitals treat uninsured paitents, the paitents bill of rights. Anyone who requires hospitalization, regardless of whether they have health insurance will be treated for symptoms if it is required.

4th Comment:Peter Corjulo This is actually correct. What people don’t understand is the quarantines are only designed to stretch out the infection rate so that hospitals can handle the load. People will still get this infection and some of them will die. I’m not sure we needed to destroy our entire economy over this.

(I included the previous comment not as an endorsement of my arguement, but because the following comment I’m responding too is in response to Peters comment, and is actually a reiteration of what Peter was saying, that the purpose of quarentine was to provide time to ensure our medical facilities were prepared to treat the symptoms.)

5th Comment: Advenco@Peter Corjulo: what about the argument that many deaths can be prevented if they get hospital care that they wouldn’t get otherwise if there wasn’t a quarantine?

6th Comment:

Orion Simerl
48 minutes ago@Advenco I gave you like on your comment, it is the first valid point I’ve come across for the quarentine. Without the quarentine would hospitals have run out of beds to treat paitents? In NYC the lowest point for ICU beds was 307 March 28th (, and despite media reporting that NYC was going to run out of ICU beds prior to that day and the following days, by March 31st, NYC had 392 beds ( 850 ICU beds were occupied by Covid paitents, 850 were occupied by non-Covid paitents. Isn’t it safe to presume that if we didn’t quarentine that this would lead to at least double the number of cases and a shortage of beds, and people would die because they were unable to get treatment for their symptoms?

The hospitals themselves could have handled about 1.5x the amount of Covid cases as they’ve had in NYC during that period. More importantly, they’ve brought in the ship with 1000 beds to NYC, and it has only treated 20 paitents likely to preserve the illusion that it has a reason for being there. Without the quarentine, with only the ship as additional temporary relief, we could have accomodated 2.5x the amount of covid cases in NYC.

Had it been necessary, there are other measures that could have been taken, pop up hospitals, air transport to other hospitals, etc. There would be slightly more community spread but this community spread would be occuring largely among healthy people, since people with medical conditions and the elderly would still self quarentine. Without shutting down the entire economy, we would have experienced a greater incidence of cases, but a much lower incidence of hospitalization and mortality. It is unlikely that not shutting down the economy would have resulted in people who needed treatment being without access to medical care.

The other aspect of it is with the fear mongering of the media, many healthy people would have self quarentined on their own accord. We didn’t need to “destroy our economy” to manage the virus. Thank you for your comment. I hadn’t considered that point prior to you raising it.