China's C19 Liability

[Sparko]

Except China isn't doing as well as you seem to think - far from it. A lot of Potempkin and increasingly less of the fundamentals. Literally the only thing keeping money in China is the exchange cap and even that may be weakening as Chinese wealthy become even more fearful of their government.

Their capitalistic trade with the outside world funds their government. But it also weakens their hold on their people as they see what wealth and freedom is out there. Which is why China tries so hard to isolate their general population from the outside world. I think taking back Hong Kong was actually a trojan horse. The unrest will continue to spread from there.

[seanD]

Except China isn't doing as well as you seem to think - far from it. A lot of Potempkin and increasingly less of the fundamentals. Literally the only thing keeping money in China is the exchange cap and even that may be weakening as Chinese wealthy become even more fearful of their government.

I think china is a huge factor in this whole "Great Reset" globalism push. If that's the case, not only will this matter with the virus origins continue to be ignored (at least by the powers that be that influence mass public opinion), but china is going to become more and more involved in global matters involving nations of the world. Sort of like what we're seeing now, only more accelerated.

[rogue06]

---

what-really-happened-in-wuhan-cat-knocking-covid-jar-off-counter.jpg

[seanD]

I grant it's a single commentary but after the crisis come the lawsuits.

COVID-19 Death Toll Now at 6.9 Million: China Should Pay at Least $19 Trillion in Damages for ‘Mass Murder’



A new study found that the COVID-19 global death toll is double that of prior estimates by the World Health Organization. The WHO estimated 3.2 million deaths, but Director Chris Murray at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington told the Financial Times that “the actual toll is significantly worse.”

A new IHME study estimates that the coronavirus killed 6.9 million. Not including economic damages from the lockdown, suffering to survivors, costs borne by society from hospitalization and new vaccines, future damages from the ongoing growth of the pandemic, or criminal penalties, China is already responsible for approximately $19 trillion in damages, according to my calculations.

Deaths in the United States are estimated at nearly 900,000 rather than the 570,000 of prior estimates, according to the IHME study. India has an even worse underestimate, with actual deaths calculated at three times the official numbers. Russian deaths are now estimated at 593,000 rather than the official tally of 109,000. The Institute explained that test quality inconsistency and under-reporting of care facility deaths explain prior undercounts.

The new mortality figures were calculated by subtracting pre-COVID death trends from the actual death trends during the pandemic. The University of Washington adjusted the estimate for indirect changes from the pandemic, for example higher deaths from fear of hospitals during the pandemic, and lower deaths from reduced vehicular traffic.

The old underestimates tend to let China off the hook and ease government claims that they did well in limiting the effects of COVID. But China must not escape.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations confirmed two key facts. First, the Wuhan lab concealed its work with China’s military. And second, several researchers exhibited COVID-like symptoms in Fall 2019.

Analysts argue that China is legally responsible for the pandemic. Harvard Law professor James Kraska wrote in March: “As the novel coronavirus incubated in Wuhan from mid-December to mid-January, the Chinese state made evidently intentional misrepresentations to its people concerning the outbreak, providing false assurances to the population preceding the approach of the Lunar New Year celebrations on Jan. 25.”

China expert Gordon Chang wrote in an email that the country “intentionally spread COVID-19 beyond its borders,” and called it a form of “mass murder.” He provided three major reasons for this conclusion.

First, “the regime tried to convince the world that COVID-19 was not human-to-human transmissible when it knew that it was.”

Second, after Beijing admitted the disease’s transmissibility, “it then attempted to convince the world that the disease would not lead to many infections and deaths when it knew that it already had, thereby misleading public health officials into not taking precautions they otherwise would have adopted.”

And third, “China pressured [other countries] to not impose travel restrictions and quarantines when it was locking down its own country.”

According to Chang, “Beijing simultaneously arguing that countries should not ban Chinese travelers while maintaining lockdowns unmistakably suggests an intent to spread the disease beyond China’s borders.” He argues that China “saw how COVID-19 had crippled China. If they wanted to cripple other societies with the virus, they would have done what they in fact did …. They maliciously spread the virus to the world.”

According to Chang’s source, China’s National Health Commission ordered every lab, hospital, and other research facility in China to destroy samples of the coronavirus on Jan. 3. The intention could have been to destroy evidence. Chang said the destruction of samples was contrary to best practices during an epidemic. “The universal practice is to keep samples, especially during the early stages of an epidemic when they are needed for contact tracing and vaccine development.”

The title of Professor Kraska’s March article concluded that claims against China for COVID-19 “could be in the trillions.” He wrote in an email that, “In the law deaths are calculated as an economic cost of the deceased’s expected earnings, potential inheritance and job benefits, and goods and services that they would have produced in their lifetime, plus the costs of their medical support and funeral expenses. In general, these costs have been in the $2.5-3.0 million range for a single person. These costs could (and should) be added to a claim against China for wrongful death, in my view.”

This is the thread that should be bumped now that the so-called "lab leak" is a possibility in the MSM. The article in the OP takes it to a whole other level and suggests the chinese deliberately released it -- you know, a bioweapon -- also backing Dr. Li-Meng Yan's claim.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chines...ly-coronavirus

[rogue06]

I don't think that the Chinese would deliberately release it without first having developed a vaccine for themselves.

That's Basic Villainy 101

[seanD]

I don't think that the Chinese would deliberately release it without first having developed a vaccine for themselves.

That's Basic Villainy 101

They did have a vaccine, but if they had introduced it immediately after, wouldn't that make it obvious? How do you explain their actions described in the OP?

And I think you underestimate their ruthlessness. They know they could contain it better because they're a ruthless totalitarian regime that can force the populace to comply to mandates required to mitigate it. This wouldn't fly so well in western democratic regimes.

[rogue06]

They did have a vaccine, but if they had introduced it immediately after, wouldn't that make it obvious? How do you explain their actions described in the OP?

And I think you underestimate their ruthlessness. They know they could contain it better because they're a ruthless totalitarian regime that can force the populace to comply to mandates required to mitigate it. This wouldn't fly so well in western democratic regimes.

The vaccine that they developed is at best questionable in its effectiveness. The point of releasing a bioweapon is to decimate the other side. Not wipe out your side as well.

[seanD]

The vaccine that they developed is at best questionable in its effectiveness. The point of releasing a bioweapon is to decimate the other side. Not wipe out your side as well.

The point is to decimate your opponents while making it look less likely you were responsible or that you did it intentionally. I still think you're underestimating how ruthless they are.

How do you explain their actions described in the OP? That looks suspiciously like it was intentional.

[rogue06]

The point is to decimate your opponents while making it look less likely you were responsible or that you did it intentionally. I still think you're underestimating how ruthless they are.

Only if you want your victims to retaliate.

THow do you explain their actions described in the OP? That looks suspiciously like it was intentional.

We've know that the Chicoms repeatedly lied through their teeth about Covid, but that does not necessarily automatically equate to having deliberately manufactured and released it.

Look at it this way. Say some real sleazeball gets in an auto accident. After the accident he lies about everything not wanting to take any responsibility. Does that therefore now mean that the sleazeball deliberately caused the wreck?

[seanD]

Only if you want your victims to retaliate.


We've know that the Chicoms repeatedly lied through their teeth about Covid, but that does not necessarily automatically equate to having deliberately manufactured and released it.

Look at it this way. Say some real sleazeball gets in an auto accident. After the accident he lies about everything not wanting to take any responsibility. Does that therefore now mean that the sleazeball deliberately caused the wreck?

I think you're missing the point. Your opponents won't retaliate if it doesn't look like you did it intentionally or did it at all. You believe they wouldn't be ruthless enough to unleash it on themselves, therefore they didn't do it intentionally. See how it works?

From the OP article:

First, “the regime tried to convince the world that COVID-19 was not human-to-human transmissible when it knew that it was.”

Second, after Beijing admitted the disease’s transmissibility, “it then attempted to convince the world that the disease would not lead to many infections and deaths when it knew that it already had, thereby misleading public health officials into not taking precautions they otherwise would have adopted.”

And third, “China pressured [other countries] to not impose travel restrictions and quarantines when it was locking down its own country.”

According to Chang, “Beijing simultaneously arguing that countries should not ban Chinese travelers while maintaining lockdowns unmistakably suggests an intent to spread the disease beyond China’s borders.” He argues that China “saw how COVID-19 had crippled China. If they wanted to cripple other societies with the virus, they would have done what they in fact did …. They maliciously spread the virus to the world.”

How does that just look like a cover-up of an accident to you and not intentionally trying to spread it?

[rogue06]

I think you're missing the point. Your opponents won't retaliate if it doesn't look like you did it intentionally or did it at all. You believe they wouldn't be ruthless enough to unleash it on themselves, therefore they didn't do it intentionally. See how it works?

From the OP article:



How does that just look like a cover-up of an accident to you and not intentionally trying to spread it?

If they supported closing their boarders it would expose all of their lies trying to cover it up -- especially the one that it could not be transmitted person-to-person.

China is all about saving face. It's why they never forget or forgive anyone who embarrasses them.

[seanD]

If they supported closing their boarders it would expose all of their lies trying to cover it up -- especially the one that it could not be transmitted person-to-person.

China is all about saving face. It's why they never forget or forgive anyone who embarrasses them.

The article states they were against closing borders after they admitted transmissibility and when they themselves were already locking down. So there was no point in a cover-up after that. In fact, the article doesn't even really suggest, though suggesting china intentionally wanted it to spread after the fact, that they intentionally created it as a bioweapon and released it that way. You're apparently going above and beyond defending them on this.

[rogue06]

The article states they were against closing borders after they admitted transmissibility and when they themselves were already locking down. So there was no point in a cover-up after that. In fact, the article doesn't even really suggest, though suggesting china intentionally wanted it to spread after the fact, that they intentionally created it as a bioweapon and released it that way. You're apparently going above and beyond defending them on this.

This all sounds more like the theory that once it escaped the lab that the Chicoms were willing to let it spread in order to force the West to start working on vaccines ASAP.

If so, that still doesn't mean it was released intentionally.

[seanD]

This all sounds more like the theory that once it escaped the lab that the Chicoms were willing to let it spread in order to force the West to start working on vaccines ASAP.

If so, that still doesn't mean it was released intentionally.

Yeah, I just said that, at least about the article itself.

But you apparently were so quick to defend them, that realization didn't click until I pointed that out.

[rogue06]

Yeah, I just said that, at least about the article itself.

But you apparently were so quick to defend them, that realization didn't click until I pointed that out.

No. I didn't mention it because, as indicated, it does not support a conclusion that it was intentionally released.

And I'm hardly defending the Chicoms here. The left continues to use the excuse that they were basically over charged when some accused them of deliberately disseminating that plague as the reason for ignoring it. They will do so again if charges are made that cannot be corroborated. I don't want them to have that excuse. I want their feet kept to the fire so that China is held accountable.