Yes, but again there IS such a rumor. And I was thinking about it and it wouldn't be that hard to cover it up to a degree, if you consider that a lot of people who would miss a particular victim are now also dead.
Consider a network of interconnected nodes with more local than distant connections, if you remove nodes from an area, the outer nodes would have had connection to remaining nodes, but some of the inner nodes would only be well known (well connected) to those who are also now removed. And people could be told "they died of the virus" but how does someone know that, say at the current figures about 1000 people have died, who would know that their dead relative wasn't part of that 1000 when told about it?! Do they know the other 1000 victims in order to dispute the fatality figures? Of course, it might well be exposed, the truth often does come to light, but not always at the time. When the Reichstag fire occurred, I'm sure there were rumors, but most in Germany surely believed at the time and perhaps elsewhere too, but now the truth is out. Easily the same type of reasoning could have been used then about how leaks occur, or about the Tuskegee experiments if you want to spread the blame around. Ok, those were pre-internet examples, but how much noise is there now on the internet? Case in point, a case I know we disagree on from arguments in the distant past, 9/11, a LOT of people agree with me that it was blatantly an inside job. Increasingly only a percentage of people need to plausibly believe in the governments narrative, those who take the "respectable" and official stance. Or, even arguably just the news and some paid shills (Operation Mockingbird) to make people think that more people agree with the mainstream narrative than really do. Human tendency to want to be part of the main group (for safety) ensures that most will bend their perception to fit in. And there is a valid reason to downplay the seriousness, they might not want undue panic, and they want to keep exports and the stock exchange afloat, so while downplaying the lethality of the virus is clearly a poor idea, it is an understandable one, but then it is easy to explain a higher rate of death in pockets by blaming different mutations of the virus some which were more lethal. On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:21 AM Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jonathan Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Along with the lockdown and arrests... Welding building shut... >> >> If the Virus isn't higher than 2-3% fatality, then I think they are >> probably using it as an excuse to kill off some of their population >> under the guise of a virus. > > > Such things are not happening, because they could not be kept secret. The > Chinese government has tight control over the media and internet, but not > that tight. People will know when thousands of their relatives and friends > die or disappear. False rumors of terrible things circulate in China all the > time. The government cannot stop them. It would be even harder to stop a > rumor of a terrible thing that was true. >
