Major spike in business bankruptcies due to lockdowns

[Gary K]

Anyone with any brains saw this coming. Business bankruptcies are up 20% year over year. This the deliberate destruction of the middle class by government.

Major Spike in Business Bankruptcies Due to COVID Lockdowns

Almost a year after governments at all levels used COVID-19 as a pretext for forced quarantines for the non-sick, causing many businesses to fail, those that survived on loans are now declaring bankruptcy at an all-time high. ...

thenewamerican.com

 

[chair]

Lockdowns are a necessary evil. The epidemic is real.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Lockdowns are a necessary evil.

Only for tyrannical governments.

Otherwise no, they're simply evil.

The epidemic is real.

Partly because of the lockdowns.

 

[chair]

Partly because of the lockdowns.

?

 

[JudgeRightly]

?

Figure it out, Chair.

If the epidemic is real partly because of the lockdowns, what does that imply?

 

[chair]

Figure it out, Chair.

If the epidemic is real partly because of the lockdowns, what does that imply?

Um- why do you say that the epidemic is 'caused' by lockdowns?
Or is this part of "the whole epidemic thing is fake and a way for XX to take over the world"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Um- why do you say that the epidemic is 'caused' by lockdowns?

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Read what I said again.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Figure it out, Chair.

If the epidemic is real partly because of the lockdowns, what does that imply?

The epidemic was real before lockdowns were even enacted. You're making no sense. Why do you suppose Trump finally got around to declaring a national emergency?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The epidemic was real before lockdowns were even enacted.

Think "sustained epidemic" because of the lockdowns.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Think "sustained epidemic" because of the lockdowns.

How does that work exactly? Explain your reasoning.

 

[chair]

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Read what I said again.

Yes, you are right, you said "Partly because of the lockdowns." That bears explanation

 

[Hilltrot]

Yes, you are right, you said "Partly because of the lockdowns." That bears explanation

Lockdowns crowd people into cramped quarters - increasing the risk of spread. People then have to go to large, now crowded, corporate stores to get their food and then spread it to everyone else.

Eider posted a nice graph showing how CCP virus cases spiked in England right after their lockdowns started.

Regardless, lockdowns ave been shown to be ineffective in the U.S. and failed to stop the CCP virus from spreading in China.

Karol Markowicz: COVID and Florida vs. NY -- What I discovered when I arrived in the Sunshine State

Landing at Palm Beach International Airport, I was ready to see how the other half lived. The COVID-sane half, that is.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Arthur Brain]

Lockdowns crowd people into cramped quarters - increasing the risk of spread. People then have to go to large, now crowded, corporate stores to get their food and then spread it to everyone else.

Eider posted a nice graph showing how CCP virus cases spiked in England right after their lockdowns started.

Regardless, lockdowns ave been shown to be ineffective in the U.S. and failed to stop the CCP virus from spreading in China.

Karol Markowicz: COVID and Florida vs. NY -- What I discovered when I arrived in the Sunshine State

Landing at Palm Beach International Airport, I was ready to see how the other half lived. The COVID-sane half, that is.

www.foxnews.com

Well, people generally get their food and supplies from major supermarket stores anyway so lockdowns don't affect the volume of people doing their shopping. They're no more or less busy as they are during normal times. It should also be apparent that figures don't immediately go down once a lockdown is in place. They're expected to rise for the initial period because of the catch up phase. There's no logic to the argument that the epidemic is real partly because of the pandemic or sustained because of them at all.

 

[Hilltrot]

Well, people generally get their food and supplies from major supermarket stores anyway so lockdowns don't affect the volume of people doing their shopping.

So why close down the other stores?

They're no more or less busy as they are during normal times.

Corporate profit numbers do not match what you say.

It should also be apparent that figures don't immediately go down once a lockdown is in place. They're expected to rise for the initial period because of the catch up phase.

This is illogical and makes no sense.

There's no logic to the argument that lockdowns are real partly because of the pandemic or sustained because of them at all.

There is no empirical evidence supporting lockdowns as Florida has shown.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So why close down the other stores?

Corporate profit numbers do not match what you say.

This is illogical and makes no sense.

There is no empirical evidence supporting lockdowns as Florida has shown.

You mean non essential ones? Why do you think?

Sure they do. If non essential stores are shut then people are going to buy items in supermarkets that they otherwise would have bought elsewhere, clothes, electricals etc.

It makes absolute sense. Figures don't just magically fall the day a lockdown happens. Does it really need explaining why?

There's plenty of data to support the effectiveness of lockdowns. You don't have to like it but it's there. Heck, I can't wait for restrictions to be lifted over here but I fully understand the necessity of them.

 

[chair]

Eider posted a nice graph showing how CCP virus cases spiked in England right after their lockdowns started.

Regardless, lockdowns ave been shown to be ineffective in the U.S. and failed to stop the CCP virus from spreading in China.

Lockdowns do work. There is a time delay- it takes a few weeks to see the effect, so of course the number of cases peaked right after the lockdown started.

China stopped the virus with a strict lockdown. As did New Zealand.

 

[Hilltrot]

It makes absolute sense. Figures don't just magically fall the day a lockdown happens. Does it really need explaining why?

Not do they fall one week or two weeks after the lock down happens. Usually, it always seems to take longer than regions which didn’t have a lockdown. The n addition more infections occur in lockdown states.

There's plenty of data to support the effectiveness of lockdowns.

What about 40,000> 20,000 do you not understand?

China stopped the virus with a strict lockdown.

No, they didn’t. And that’s with them welding doors shut.

As did New Zealand.

Strict border controls - not lockdown.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not do they fall one week or two weeks after the lock down happens. Usually, it always seems to take longer than regions which didn’t have a lockdown. The n addition more infections occur in lockdown states.

What about 40,000> 20,000 do you not understand?

No, they didn’t. And that’s with them welding doors shut.

Strict border controls - not lockdown.

Um you might want to check your posts over for spelling and stuff before submitting them. There's always a time delay when any sort of lockdown happens, that's common sense. You might have convinced yourself that they're ineffective in which case it's pointless carrying on. Data says otherwise. Regardless, lockdowns do not sustain a pandemic or play any part in them whatsoever.

 

[JudgeRightly]

. . . non essential ones . . . non essential stores

Define "non-essential."

I assert that there is no such thing as a "non-essential" business, because it is essential to the owner of the business.

 

[Hilltrot]

Um you might want to check your posts over for spelling and stuff before submitting them. There's always a time delay when any sort of lockdown happens, that's common sense. You might have convinced yourself that they're ineffective in which case it's pointless carrying on. Data says otherwise. Regardless, lockdowns do not sustain a pandemic or play any part in them whatsoever.

Arthur insists 20,000 > 40,0000 . . . he must have given his math teacher nightmares.