Turtleboy Investigates

It’s Been 15 Days Since The Boston Lockdown Protest That Was Supposed To Cause Spike In Commie Cold But Nothing Happened

 

Loading...

Fifteen days ago today hundreds of people without masks ignored social distancing guidelines by protesting the lockdown in front of the Statehouse in Boston. We were told by thousands of medical experts on social media that these foolish morons would spread the commie cold and cause another spike.

https://twitter.com/MichaelDelTufo/status/1257515388146860032

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1257416887245430787

https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/status/1257422713402032133

Let’s check the data to see how many more people caught the commie cold since that May 4 protest.

So it’s gone from 1,880 new cases on May 4 to 992 on May 15. Cool spike bro.

Maybe that’s because they’re just testing less, right?

Oh no, those have actually remained the same. On May 15 they tested close to the same amount of people as they did on May 4. Turns out everything is down since then.

The thing about epidemics where 65% of victims lived in nursing homes, is that eventually you run out of people to kill.

Team Lockdown has been wrong about everything, but it sure doesn’t stop their know it all arrogance as they look down on people who don’t choose to live in fear like them.

 

Please consider supporting local journalism by donating to the Turtle fund:




Follow us on Youtube, SoundCloud, Twitter, and Facebook.

Hello Turtle Riders. As you know if you follow Turtleboy we are constantly getting censored and banned by Facebook for what are clearly not violations of their terms of service. Twitter has done the same, and trolls mass reported our blog to Google AdSense thousands of times, leading to demonitization. We can get by and survive, but we could really use your help. Please consider donating by hitting the PayPal button above if you’d like support free speech and what we do in the face of Silicon Valley censorship. Or just buy our award winning book about the dangers of censorship and rise of Turtleboy: 

 

Loading...
39 Comment(s)
  • Orange
    May 28, 2020 at 2:50 pm

    They’re home, saving lives. My hero. Whatever should I do without them?

  • Turtle Rider
    May 20, 2020 at 5:42 am

    If someone starts shooting up a nursing home there’s no need to call the cops because eventually they’ll run out of people to kill.

  • Silencio Dogood
    May 19, 2020 at 10:59 pm

    the elderly, who fought our wars and gave their lives work to us, are no different than we are, excepting for the vicious disease of old aging. they were we, once, and shouldn’t be dismissed as statistics. the governments efforts should have gone into protecting them from Day One and fuck the rest, who are statistically improbable of dying from Covid and the few dozens who do are meaningless anyway.

    • Mass Exterminate the Elderly
      May 19, 2020 at 11:15 pm

      Wrong. Shove them in ovens.

  • Guinea Geisha
    May 19, 2020 at 6:04 pm

    When my tv asks: you still watching?
    I’m like: yeah ma’fucker, till June.

    • Silencio Dogood
      May 19, 2020 at 10:50 pm

      my tv watches me sleep, its eerie.

      • Guinea Geisha
        May 20, 2020 at 12:55 am

        If my tv is watching me right now… it would find a naked guinea bitch in the tub eating a knish. Which is all fun and games till I drop some. I think I have an irrational fear of food in my vadge. But the casino’s still closed and I like to take my chances. #quarantineproblems

        • Silencio Dogood
          May 20, 2020 at 9:42 pm

          vadge veggies have been given a bad name since they’ve been proven to cause Frigid-19, where hoarfrost is present. hit on twenty!

  • Who Flung Cum
    May 19, 2020 at 3:01 pm

    I have a spin-zone for you: what would the mayors of Somerville or Lawrence do if they saw a group of illegal immigrants sans masks?

    Whoa…

    • Stewart Nod
      May 19, 2020 at 4:36 pm

      That question blew my freaking mind.
      Best,
      Stewart

    • Luke Fondleberg
      May 26, 2020 at 3:33 am

      Burst into flame, they would

  • Truth
    May 19, 2020 at 2:38 pm

    Team Lockdown is also Team Open Borders. Can’t make this shit up.

  • Onedayitwillbe you
    May 19, 2020 at 2:07 pm

    My 64 year old mother in law that works at a shelter for 38 years got the virus and in the hospital. Healthy 64 . My 26 year old son Manager at dairy dept . Fit n healthy was fighting for his life lung collapsed 104 temp for 4 days hospital for 9 days over came it!!! It’s a horrible virus and extremely contagious. Just be smart but don’t live life in fear !! Go for it enjoy yourself

    • JP
      May 19, 2020 at 3:23 pm

      Depends on what your definition of what a fit and healthy 26 year old is. 6’1″ 127lbs soaking wet or 5’1″ 252lbs and just a little pudgy are both prime candidates for removal from this plane of existence due to Covid-1984.

  • Kevin Paul Dupont
    May 19, 2020 at 12:11 pm

    Release the murder hornets, amirite?

  • Frank
    May 19, 2020 at 11:53 am

    So what your saying is stay inside until a vaccine? That could be two years from now you stupid prick. Live your life, if we got it we would be sick for a couple days then we’d be fine. There is risks in life we are a bunch of fucking pussies for staying inside hiding from this alleged pandemic, I bet if you had an honest poll of elderly they would say to open up!

  • Frank
    May 19, 2020 at 11:48 am

    Baker has no authority to lock down the state and he knows it, time to sue him they all back down. He says safety is the reason and he knows that’s not true, fuck you baker you love power that much? You won’t stand up to what’s right, you will have to answer for your actions king baker

    • You’re a moron
      May 19, 2020 at 12:27 pm

      But YET he did close down the state How did he do that?

      • Dumbies
        May 19, 2020 at 12:41 pm

        Unfortunately the libraries are closed so there’s literally no other way for these dummies to confirm the 200 years of jurisprudence that consistently confirms this authority.

      • Bring him to court like they did in Wisconsin.
        May 19, 2020 at 1:07 pm

        Wisconsin proved Governors overstep their powers when the create rules and laws without going through legislation first. Baker is a governor not a Monarch or a Dictator. A state of emergency does not grant him complete power over the state. He needs to go through the proper legislative channels. If someone steps up and sues the state he’ll lose. He has had plenty of time to enforce the lockdown the correct way yet has chosen not to.

        He could’ve easily had our elected officials pass these safety measures. But he has gone mad with power and chosen not to. Everything has been by his order with no legislation. I repeat not a single bill has been introduced to the Massachusetts state house in regards to the lockdown OR rules for wearing masks/fines. Baker is a fucking joke and when he’s sued and loses his power grip on the state all hell will break loose.

        • Dumbies
          May 19, 2020 at 2:00 pm

          Massachusetts is not Wiconsin and our states have enacted different laws. Wild, I know! I don’t think there’s anything in the already existing laws on states of emergency that requires him to consult with the legislature (as in Wisc.) but feel free to cite the language.

          • actually
            May 19, 2020 at 2:50 pm

            You’re correct except Massachusetts grants even less power to governors in a state of emergency than Wisconsin. In fact we’re one of 6 states which strictly forbid giving governors the control Baker now has.

            But hey I don’t know jack so whateva

          • R
            May 19, 2020 at 3:12 pm

            Please cite the law that allows him to do this. All the Public Health laws talk about isolating individuals with infectious disease and how to inforce it, NOT the whole society.
            Have you actually read the 1950 Civil Defence Act? Here is the relevant part:
            “5. Proclamation of State of Emergency; Power to Seize or Possess Personal and Real Property; Awards to Owners of Seized Property.
            Because of the existing possibility of the occurrence of disasters of unprecedented size and destructiveness resulting from enemy attack, sabotage or other hostile action, in order to insure that the preparations of the commonwealth will be adequate to deal with such disasters, and generally to provide for the common defense and to protect the public peace, health, security and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of the commonwealth, if and when the congress of the United States shall declare war, or if and when the President of the United States shall by proclamation or otherwise inform the governor that the peace and security of the commonwealth are endangered by belligerent act of any enemy of the United States or of the commonwealth or by the imminent threat thereof; or upon the occurrence of any disaster or catastrophe resulting from attack, sabotage or other hostile action; or from riot or other civil disturbance; or from fire, flood, earthquake or other natural causes; or whenever because of absence of rainfall or other cause a condition exists in all or in any part of the commonwealth whereby it may reasonably be anticipated that the health, safety or property of the citizens thereof will be endangered because of fire or shortage of water or food; or whenever the accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant endangers the health, safety, or property of people of the commonwealth, the governor may issue a proclamation or proclamations setting forth a state of emergency,”
            A lot of talk about attack, sabotage, civil disturbance etc….
            Later it talk about the Governor’s powers:
            “(a) Health or safety of inmates of all institutions.
            (b) Maintenance, extension or interconnection of services of public utility or public-service companies, including public utility services owned or operated by the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof.
            (c) Policing, protection or preservation of all property, public or private, by the owner or person in control thereof, or otherwise.
            (d) Manufacture, sale, possession, use or ownership of (1) fireworks or explosives, or articles in simulation thereof; (2) means or devices of communication other than those exclusively regulated by federal authorities; (3) articles or objects (including birds and animals) capable of use for the giving of aid or information to the enemy or for the destruction of life or property.
            (e) Transportation or travel on Sundays or week-days by aircraft, watercraft, vehicle or otherwise, including the use of registration plates, signs or markers thereon.
            (f) Labor, business or work on Sundays or legal holidays.
            (g) Assemblages, parades or pedestrian travel, in order to protect the physical safety of persons or property.
            (h) Public records and the inspection thereof.
            (i) Regulation of the business of insurance and protection of the interests of the holders of insurance policies and contracts and of beneficiaries thereunder and of the interest of the public in connection therewith.
            (j) Vocational or other educational facilities supported in whole or in part by public funds, in order to extend the benefits or availability thereof.
            (k) The suspension of the operation of any statute, rule or regulation which affects the employment of persons within the commonwealth when, at such times as such suspension becomes necessary in the opinion of the governor to remove any interference, delay or obstruction in connection with the production, processing or transportation of materials which are related to the prosecution of war or which are necessary because of the existence of a state of emergency.
            (l) Regulation of the manner and method of purchasing or contracting for supplies, equipment or other property or personal or other services, and of contracting for or carrying out public works, for the commonwealth or any of its agencies or political subdivisions, including therein housing authorities.
            (m) Receipt, handling or allocation of money, supplies, equipment or material granted, loaned or allocated by the federal government to the commonwealth or any of its agencies or political subdivisions.
            (n) Protection of depositors in banks, and maintenance of the banking structure of the commonwealth.
            (o) Variance of the terms and conditions of licenses, permits or certificates of registration issued by the commonwealth or any of its agencies or political subdivisions.
            (p) Regulating the sale of articles of food and household articles.
            (q) Modification or variation in the classifications established under sections forty-five to fifty, inclusive, of chapter thirty of the General Laws and sections forty-eight to fifty-six, inclusive, of chapter thirty-five of the General Laws.”
            Might be able to regulate sales of food and household articles, maybe, but no where does it give him the right to order people to stay at home or cover thier face.
            This 1950 law has never been tested in court. Parker keeps backing off to protect the law. He would probably lose in court. The one SCOTUS case I can find came from a 1905 Massachusetts case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. While it upheld the state rights to force vacination it also said:
            “general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence”

          • ?
            May 19, 2020 at 4:37 pm

            (C)(g)(j)?

          • r
            May 19, 2020 at 7:03 pm

            OK I’ll play along.
            (c), note small “c”, talks about ” Policing, protection or preservation of all property, public or private, by the owner or person in control thereof, or otherwise”
            how does locking down the state protect or preserve property? is there looting or mass destruction of property?
            (g) “Assemblages, parades or pedestrian travel, in order to protect the physical safety of persons or property”
            Talks about “physical” safety of persons or property, not the health. Earlier in another section of the law they specifically mention health, but not here. Which according to the SJC means the legislature knew the difference and made a conscious decision not to include it here. And I do not want to hear the argument that “health” is the same as “physical”. I can be heathy but in physical danger or in bad health but completely physically secure.
            (j) “Vocational or other educational facilities supported in whole or in part by public funds, in order to extend the benefits or availability thereof.”
            Note this part says to “EXTEND the benefits or availabitiy thereof” not RESTRICT. That means he could open the schools up to people who would not otherwise qualify for public education, not close the school to children who by law are required to go to school.

            Please read Civil Defense Act (Acts 1950, Ch.639). It is for “for the purpose of minimizing and repairing injury and damage resulting from disasters caused by attack, sabotage or other hostile action; or by riot or other civil disturbance; or by fire, flood, earthquake or other natural causes”
            Natural causes are not defined which means you have to look at what the common usage at the time was, e.g. natural processes of the Earth; examples are floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, and other geologic processes. I do not think pandemics were thought of in this context, otherwise they would have included them.

            Obviously you have not read the whole law, or even the quoted text closely. Where does it say restrict the movement of citizens? I cannot find an example of this law being used during the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, the 1957 Flu Pandemic (which killed 116,000 out of a total 172 million population in the US), or the 1969 Flu Pandemic (which killed 100,000 out of total 202 million population in the US). Both the 1957 Flu and 1969 Flu killed a bigger percentage of the population but there was not lock down. Why?

          • Dumbies
            May 20, 2020 at 8:05 am

            I know it’s a small (c). My phone “corrected” it, it being the first letter I used, and didn’t think worth changing back. You knew what I meant. As for what’s relevant here, the key word is “or” as in “Policing, protection, or preservation.” You’re responding as if it says “policing FOR protection or preservation.” In reality “policing” of all public or private property is listed as a separate and equal power granted under the law and is pretty broad.

            Don’t know if I should even respond to your point on (g) because of course health is a component of physical safety, particularly when the health risk in question is a physical infection.

            You have a point under (j) but on the other hand he can already close them under (g) and it could be argued that he has powers under (j) to support local efforts to virtualize classrooms, but this seems a bit tangential to our overall discussion.

            My reading of any such language as “other natural event” is always going to be broad and I believe the courts will interpret it that was as well. Not many strict constructionists on the Mass. Supreme Court and SCOTUS isn’t going to get involved in this, and would likely agree 9-0 that the federal government has no say on 10th Amendment grounds and the consistent jurisprudence in this area. Anyhow, a pandemic is by any reasonable definition a natural event.

            Lastly, it’s my understanding that the 1957 and 1969 flu seasons were only recognized to be severe in hindsight. I’m not deeply read in this area but flu happens every year, some people go to the hospital and some people die. We take steps to prevent it through vaccinations and voluntary “social distancing” measures (calling out sick, skipping a party, etc.) but it’s something we’ve learned to live with. I think when comparing covid to the flu we need to keep that in mind. It’s literally not the flu, it’s a new and novel viral strain that was by all indications in Feb. highly contagious and likely more deadly than the flu, and similar to SARS. It was this unknown danger, combined with the real-world examples of China, Italy, Iran, growing cases in Spain and France at the time, that drove a lot of the state responses. I don’t know if at the end of the day I’ll agree that all this was necessary or effective for curbing transmission, but on the question of why was this treated differently than the flu that it’s pretty obvious. It was new, the extent of the danger unknown, and the health crisis in Italy was especially overwhelming and not to be ignored.

          • R
            May 20, 2020 at 8:06 pm

            As for (c) ” …Policing, protection or preservation of all property…”
            What is you definition of policing? Is it “the maintenance of law and order by a police force” or “the enforcement of regulations or an agreement”? Both are listed by Oxford Dictionary. Since it is not defined in the law it is reasonable to look at dictionary defintion. I think in this context it is second. I do not read that as necessarily involiving “the Police”. Either way that whole section is talking about property not people.

            On (g) I will concede that many people today will loop health into physical safety, but at the time this was written in the midst of the Cold Way they would never have considered that. It is not defined in the law so the SJC has repeatedly said youo have to look at how it would be commonly defined. People, and the law, at that time where much more concerned about safety from physical injury not medical issues. I guess it depends on if you include a biological threat in natural disaster. A lot of legal definitions are similar to “any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought”. No mention of any biological threat.

            I have talked to both my parents, who lived through all of the events I listed. I am pretty sure they understood how many people were dying around them. The percentages were much higher then and would have been more noticable.

            I think we just have a difference in how liberal we read some of the law and that is fine. I just want people to read the actual law, the definitions of the words written and think about the context when they were written rather then getting “their truth” from Facebook and Twitter.. Or for that matter here.

  • I see your priorities
    May 19, 2020 at 11:11 am

    “The thing about epidemics where 65% of victims lived in nursing homes, is that eventually you run out of people to kill.”

    Why wait for the virus to kill them thin the herd you fucking pussy.

    • Mass Exterminate the Elderly
      May 19, 2020 at 11:13 pm

      Use ovens if needed.

  • Lee Ho
    May 19, 2020 at 10:11 am

    Anyone low on Toilet Paper?

    Call 1-800-SAP-FOJO

  • Trump Train
    May 19, 2020 at 9:40 am

    90,000 dead from one virus in two months IS NOT A LOT! 39 or whatever pages of obituaries each day IS NOT A LOT!

    • Pussy
      May 19, 2020 at 10:03 am

      Do you know anyone under the age of 70 that has died from it. Do you actually know more than 5 people who have tested positive??

      I’d say close to 100% of the people reading this will say no and no to those questions. So my question is, what’s the big fucking deal???

      • Trump Train
        May 19, 2020 at 2:21 pm

        That’s my point! IT’S NOT A LOT!

  • richyrich
    May 19, 2020 at 9:40 am

    Has it occurred to you that the reason this is trending downward is because of the safety measures taken? But you’re never wrong, I forget…

    • Dick-rich
      May 19, 2020 at 9:59 am

      Has it ever occurred to you the reason it isn’t trending downward quicker is because everyone is isolated and it is taking longer to get to herd immunity? Isolating just prolongs the issue and delays then inevitable.

      Get a dictionary and read the following from the Journal of the American Medical Association.

      “Imposition of large-scale quarantine—compulsory sequestration of groups of possibly exposed persons or human confinement within certain geographic areas to prevent spread of contagious disease—should not be considered a primary public health strategy in most imaginable circumstances,” the report states. “In the majority of contexts, other less extreme public health actions are likely to be more effective and create fewer unintended adverse consequences than quarantine.”

      The only thing that has changed since that was written is that an Orangeman is in the White House and democrats will do anything, even kill citizens to get power back.

      • WTF you smoking
        May 19, 2020 at 11:25 am

        So what you’re saying is just go about our lives and let COVID-19 run it’s course. Fuck it if you’re not 80+ you got nothing to worry about.

        #all lives matter (unless you’re over 80 then you can fuck right off and die)

        • Faux News
          May 19, 2020 at 12:12 pm

          That’s pretty much what he’s been saying all along. As long as he can go out and play, let the old folk, vets and sick babies “just die and decrease the surplus population”
          Oh wait that was Scrooge who said that.

          New cases. Not to worry. By the time this thing is over UnkTwat will be old too.

          May 11. 969
          May 12. 870
          May 13. 1165
          May 14. 1685
          May 15. 1239
          May 16. 1512
          May 17. 1077
          May 18. 1042

        • Hugh-Bo Mont
          May 19, 2020 at 2:38 pm

          So 98% of the population has to suffer to save the other 2%? Just like we elect a candidate who gets the least amount of votes?
          If you are afraid of Covid, stay home, but don’t make others do the same

          Quarantine keeps sick people from going out in public. Tyranny keeps healthy people from going out in public.

      • Richyrich
        May 20, 2020 at 7:12 am

        Oddly enough, JAMA is advocating exactly the types of precautions you say don’t help. Guess the preeminent medical journal of this country is wrong, and you’re right.

Comment on this Post

*

RELATED POSTS
Who Are Worcester’s Top 5 DUI (OUI) Attorney’s?
Best Show Of All Time: True Detective, House Of Cards, The Wire, Sopranos, Or Breaking Bad?
I Figured Out What Happens To Tony Soprano In Final Scene But It Still Sucks; Here Are The Top 10 Funniest Scenes In Sopranos History