980 replies to this topic

[Florin]

 

I don't think there are many points of agreement:


SUBJECT HIP'S VIEW
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The pandemic A major global medical crisis
COVID deaths A horrible affliction on humanity
COVID vaccines Saved the world from calamity
Masks A useful protective tool
Lockdowns Necessary before vaccines arrived
Ivermectin Works in 3rd world (Strongyloides)
Long COVID A disaster for 65 million people
Reading sources Scientific journals and articles
The authorities Mostly trusts scientific experts
Excess deaths Caused by COVID long term effects

Your views on masks, lockdowns, and experts have been mostly wrong. Masks (not to be confused with respirators) were a good, better-than-nothing, emergency measure at the beginning but have mostly failed to provide significant protection for most of the rest of the pandemic. The first lockdowns were squandered; the authorities and experts failed to use the lockdown time to produce respirators for everyone that wanted or needed to wear them. It's also unclear if the subsequent milder lockdowns significantly reduced the burden on hospital utilization or significantly slowed the spread. The experts should have known that airborne aerosol transmission is probably the only way for respiratory pandemics to rapidly spread, but they failed to uncover this elementary and not-hard-to-discover fact. Even after the pandemic revealed this fact, the experts still refused to drop the failed policies of masking and lockdowns and switch to respirators.

Edited by Mind, 08 May 2023 - 08:34 PM.

[Mind]

It seemed obvious to many during the COVID panic that public "health" decisions were turning into political weapons. Science and normal safety guidelines were being rejected.

 

There is more evidence everyday that this was the case. The Biden administration pressured the FDA for approval of COVID boosters - damn the science.

 

All of the unconstitutional and illegal worker vaccine mandates are now being overturned. We can hope that there will be an avalanche of lawsuits coming forth.

 

Thankfully some people are recognizing the totalitarian COVID response and its parallels to other ugly moments in human history.

 

I am still unsettled over how easy it was for the government to turn one citizen against another - how vicious the attacks were against any alternative views on how to handle the COVID panic. Peer-reviewed and solid science was shouted down in favor of government diktats.

[albedo]

I have been all my life inclined and confronted to epistemology, philosophy and to lesser extent politics of science, but nothing has been more instructive, though provoking, real-life experience as seeing science and politics interacting, for the good as much as for the bad, with each other during the pandemic.

I think the implications of the “Because I say so” of the following excerpt might sound familiar to many here:

 

“… Error is the normal state of our knowledge, and is no disgrace. There

is nothing bad about false philosophy. Problems are inevitable, but

they can be solved by imaginative, critical thought that seeks good

explanations. That is good philosophy, and good science, both of which

have always existed in some measure. For instance, children have

always learned language by making, criticizing and testing conjectures

about the connection between words and reality. They could not

possibly learn it in any other way, as I shall explain in Chapter 16.

Bad philosophy has always existed too. For instance, children have

always been told, ‘Because I say so.’ Although that is not always

intended as a philosophical position, it is worth analysing it as one,

for in four simple words it contains remarkably many themes of false

and bad philosophy. First, it is a perfect example of bad explanation:

it could be used to ‘explain’ anything. Second, one way it achieves that

status is by addressing only the form of the question and not the

substance: it is about who said something, not what they said. That is

the opposite of truth-seeking. Third, it reinterprets a request for true

explanation (why should something-or-other be as it is?) as a request

for justification (what entitles you to assert that it is so?), which is

the justified-true-belief chimera. Fourth, it confuses the nonexistent

authority for ideas with human authority (power) – a much-travelled

path in bad political philosophy. And, fifth, it claims by this means to

stand outside the jurisdiction of normal criticism.

Bad philosophy before the Enlightenment was typically of the

because-I-say-so variety. When the Enlightenment liberated philosophy

and science, they both began to make progress, and increasingly there

was good philosophy. But, paradoxically, bad philosophy became worse…”

(The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World - David Deutsch (2011))

 

[Mind]

Don't forget how they vilified you for not getting the COVID injection. Remember, it was even worse on social media and Internet forums. This WAS THE POLICY of the US and UK governments, and it was faithfully delivered by mainstream media sources. They are not apologizing. They will do it again.

 

[Covid Retrospective, Vol. 1] Media: The Unvaccinated Are Scum - YouTube

[Mind]

Another successful lawsuit against the COVID injection mandates. Teachers who were fired for not getting the COVID injection are getting their jobs back with back-pay. Hopefully a lot more of this is coming.

 

Unethically and dangerously forcing injections and other medical procedures upon the citizens has happened many times in US history. California was guilty of it. They might be in trouble with the forced COVID injections as well.

[albedo]

OK, it is not new research, maybe too opinionated but the compilation is good i guess. Will we learn for the new pandemics?

 

"Early in the Covid pandemic concerns were raised that lockdown and other non-pharmaceutical interventions would cause significant multidimensional harm to society. This paper comprehensively evaluates the global state of knowledge on these adverse social impacts, with an emphasis on their type and magnitude during 2020 and 2021. A harm framework was developed spanning 10 categories: health, economy, income, food security, education, lifestyle, intimate relationships, community, environment and governance. The analysis synthesizes 600 publications with a focus on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, global reports and multi-country studies. This cumulative academic research shows that the collateral damage of the pandemic response was substantial, wide-ranging and will leave behind a legacy of harm for hundreds of millions of people in the years ahead. Many original predictions are broadly supported by the research data including: a rise in non-Covid excess mortality, mental health deterioration, child abuse and domestic violence, widening global inequality, food insecurity, lost educational opportunities, unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, social polarization, soaring debt, democratic backsliding and declining human rights. Young people, individuals and countries with lower socioeconomic status, women and those with pre-existing vulnerabilities were hit hardest. Societal harms should challenge the dominant mental model of the pandemic response: it is likely that many Covid policies caused more harm than benefit, although further research is needed to address knowledge gaps and explore policy trade-offs, especially at a country-level. Planning and response for future global health emergencies must integrate a wider range of expertise to account for and mitigate societal harms associated with government intervention."

 

Bardosh K. How Did the Covid Pandemic Response Harm Society? A Global Evaluation and State of Knowledge Review(2020-21). Social Science Research Network; 2023.

https://papers.ssrn....ract_id=4447806

 

[aim1]

Follow the science became a worldwide lie driven by greed.
Where are all the "scientist", leftist media talking heads and lying politicians now?
I remember a poster on Longecity stating that now that biden "won" the election, there would be normalcy restored and no more chaos...another lie.
pfizer and the rest of those pharmaceutical companies, fauci, gates, comcast, Xi and the rest should face swift justice, but they won't and they know it.

https://pjmedia.com/...ndards-n1698691

Edited by aim1, 30 May 2023 - 10:08 AM.

[geo12the]

 biden "won" the election, 

 

Translation: I believe lies are true. I can't take people seriously, let alone believe them when they pontificate on serious science matters,  when they live in fantasy worlds. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Just a reminder that while the covid pandemic and politics are heavily intertwined, this is not a political forum per se. We do actually have a forum for politics so let's keep the really overt political content there.

 

 

[Mind]

Just an accounting of some of the most moronic COVID pandemic responses from states like New York and Michigan.

[Mind]

I am pretty sure most people still don't know how much false, non-scientific, and biased information they were being fed during the COVID panic.

 

Recall that major media organizations were being paid to push certain narratives about the disease and COVID injections. They hardly investigated anything. They just repeated what they were paid to say.

 

Recall the non-existent doctors on social media who were spreading irrational fear about how deadly the disease was

 

Remember the nurse who was spinning tall-tales about how there was so much death.

 

Recall that AI chatbots were being used to push the COVID injections. In a sane world, you would talk to your doctor about it.

 

Recall that hospitals were being paid for every COVID case/death with bonuses for putting people on ventilators. In a sane world, there should have been payment for every patient they saved, no matter the treatment.

 

Recall the UN/WHO paid a lot of money for "influencers" to spread their COVID narrative. People were getting COVID information from social media influencers and believing it, for crying out loud.

[Mind]

The most awful part about the COVID panic was the unconstitutional and illegal censorship. Instead of getting diverse opinions/ideas, and an "all hands on deck" approach, the Biden Administration censored everything except what Pfizer and Moderna wanted them to say - "the narrative". Basically, COVID is killing everyone. There is no hope except for a vaccine. Masking works. Isolation works. 

 

In the legal battle Missouri vs. Biden, the testimony is incredibly scary. Biden's lawyers are basically arguing there is no first amendment. One of the first things the Biden administration did upon taking office is to command multiple departments of the executive branch to censor EVERYTHING they didn't want to hear about COVID. No alternative treatments. No alternative policies. We learned from the Twitter files and now Facebook disclosures that they were censoring objectively true data about the COVID panic and treatments. They prevented the populace from getting potentially life-saving advice.

 

People need to be fired. People need to go to prison for a long time.

[albedo]

Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions

 

Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung & Steve H. Hanke

5 June 2023

 

 

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of lockdowns, also referred to as ‘Covid restrictions’, ‘social distancing measures’ etc., on COVID-19 mortality based on available empirical evidence. We define lockdowns as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). We employ a systematic search and screening procedure in which 19,646 studies are identified that could potentially address the purpose of our study. After three levels of screening, 32 studies qualified. Of those, estimates from 22 studies could be converted to standardised measures for inclusion in the metaanalysis.

They are separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place-order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. Stringency index studies find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality. This result is consistent with the view that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, did play an important role in mitigating the pandemic.

Summary

• • The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden
  • 
    
  • This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States.
  • 
    
  • Lockdowns prevented relatively few deaths compared to a typical flu season – in England and Wales, 18,500–24,800 flu deaths occur, in Europe 72,000 flu deaths occur, and in the United States 38,000 flu deaths occur in a typical flu season
  • 
    
  • These results pale in comparison to the Imperial College of London’s modelling exercises (March 2020), which predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom and over 2 million lives in the United States
  • 
    
  • Herby, Jonung, and Hanke conclude that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic – but harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits
  • 
    
  
  COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.
  
  The comprehensive 220-page book, began with a systematic review of 19,646 potentially relevant studies. For their meta-analysis, the authors’ screening resulted in the choice of 22 studies that are based on actual, measured mortality data, not on results derived from modelling exercises. A meta-analysis is considered the ‘gold-standard’ for evidence, as it combines comparable, independent studies to determine overall trends.
  
  The authors, including Professor Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University, also consider a range of studies that determined the impact of individual lockdown restrictions, including stay at-home rules to school closures and travel restrictions.
  In each case, the restrictions did little to reduce COVID-19 mortality:
• 
  
• Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent;
• 
  
• Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent;
• 
  
• Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent;
• 
  
• Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and
• 
  
• School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.
• 
  

A second approach employed by the authors to estimate the effects of lockdowns on mortality combined studies that looked at specific lockdown measures (such as school closures, mask wearing, etc.) on how single non-pharmaceutical interventions were actually used in Europe and the United States. Using this approach, the authors estimate that lockdowns reduced mortality by 10.7 per cent in the spring of 2020 – significantly less than estimates produced by epidemiological modelling.

The study compares the effect of lockdown measures against the effect of ‘doing the least,’ rather than doing nothing at all. Sweden’s response to COVID was among the least stringent in Europe, but still imposed some legal restrictions and included an extensive public information campaign.

 

https://iea.org.uk/p...d-restrictions/

 

[Mind]

 

Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions

 

Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung & Steve H. Hanke

5 June 2023

 

 

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of lockdowns, also referred to as ‘Covid restrictions’, ‘social distancing measures’ etc., on COVID-19 mortality based on available empirical evidence. We define lockdowns as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). We employ a systematic search and screening procedure in which 19,646 studies are identified that could potentially address the purpose of our study. After three levels of screening, 32 studies qualified. Of those, estimates from 22 studies could be converted to standardised measures for inclusion in the metaanalysis.

They are separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place-order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. Stringency index studies find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2 per cent. This translates into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. SIPOs were also relatively ineffective in the spring of 2020, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0 per cent. This translates into approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Based on specific NPIs, we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7 per cent. This translates into approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States. In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. When checked for potential biases, our results are robust. Our results are also supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify. The results of our meta-analysis support the conclusion that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality. This result is consistent with the view that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, did play an important role in mitigating the pandemic.

Summary

• • The Herby-Jonung-Hanke meta-analysis found that lockdowns, as reported in studies based on stringency indices in the spring of 2020, reduced mortality by 3.2 per cent when compared to less strict lockdown policies adopted by the likes of Sweden
  •  
  • This means lockdowns prevented 1,700 deaths in England and Wales, 6,000 deaths across Europe, and 4,000 deaths in the United States.
  •  
  • Lockdowns prevented relatively few deaths compared to a typical flu season – in England and Wales, 18,500–24,800 flu deaths occur, in Europe 72,000 flu deaths occur, and in the United States 38,000 flu deaths occur in a typical flu season
  •  
  • These results pale in comparison to the Imperial College of London’s modelling exercises (March 2020), which predicted that lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom and over 2 million lives in the United States
  •  
  • Herby, Jonung, and Hanke conclude that voluntary changes in behaviour, such as social distancing, played a significant role in mitigating the pandemic – but harsher restrictions, like stay-at-home rules and school closures, generated very high costs but produced only negligible health benefits
  •  
  
  COVID-19 lockdowns were “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions,” according to this peer-reviewed new academic study. The draconian policy failed to significantly reduce deaths while imposing substantial social, cultural, and economic costs.
  
  The comprehensive 220-page book, began with a systematic review of 19,646 potentially relevant studies. For their meta-analysis, the authors’ screening resulted in the choice of 22 studies that are based on actual, measured mortality data, not on results derived from modelling exercises. A meta-analysis is considered the ‘gold-standard’ for evidence, as it combines comparable, independent studies to determine overall trends.
  
  The authors, including Professor Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University, also consider a range of studies that determined the impact of individual lockdown restrictions, including stay at-home rules to school closures and travel restrictions.
  In each case, the restrictions did little to reduce COVID-19 mortality:
•  
• Shelter-in-place (stay at home) orders in Europe and the United States reduced COVID mortality by between 1.4 and 4.1 per cent;
•  
• Business closures reduced mortality by 7.5 per cent;
•  
• Gathering limits likely increased COVID mortality by almost six per cent;
•  
• Mask mandates, which most countries avoided in Spring 2020, reduced mortality by 18.7 per cent, particularly mandates in workplaces; and
•  
• School closures resulted in a between 2.5 per cent and 6.2 per cent mortality reduction.
•  

A second approach employed by the authors to estimate the effects of lockdowns on mortality combined studies that looked at specific lockdown measures (such as school closures, mask wearing, etc.) on how single non-pharmaceutical interventions were actually used in Europe and the United States. Using this approach, the authors estimate that lockdowns reduced mortality by 10.7 per cent in the spring of 2020 – significantly less than estimates produced by epidemiological modelling.

The study compares the effect of lockdown measures against the effect of ‘doing the least,’ rather than doing nothing at all. Sweden’s response to COVID was among the least stringent in Europe, but still imposed some legal restrictions and included an extensive public information campaign.

 

https://iea.org.uk/p...d-restrictions/

 

 

I wish I had time to review the 22 studies included in this meta review. With respect to mortality, the data in most countries is corrupt/poor quality. In the US, COVID deaths were wildly over-counted. People were killed by ventilators in many cases, not COVID. PCR tests have been shown to have a 42% false positive rate.

[WiryLeery]

The misattributed "John Hopkins" study, which has become a favorite go-to for lockdown skeptics, is a glaring example of intellectual laziness and misinformation. It's astounding how people blindly spread its findings without bothering to fact-check.

 

The study's actual source is an economics professor at John Hopkin's. The cherry-picked data and flawed methodology further expose its lack of credibility. It's a pathetic excuse for scientific discourse and serves as a disservice to anyone genuinely interested in evidence-based discussions.

 

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?

 

 

I wish I had time to review the 22 studies included in this meta review. With respect to mortality, the data in most countries is corrupt/poor quality. In the US, COVID deaths were wildly over-counted. People were killed by ventilators in many cases, not COVID. PCR tests have been shown to have a 42% false positive rate.

 

This claim unfairly concludes that COVID deaths in the US were wildly over-counted without providing concrete evidence. It also oversimplifies the complexity of determining cause of death in relation to COVID-19. Additionally, stating that PCR tests have a 42% false positive rate is misleading, as the accuracy of PCR tests depends on various factors and is generally considered reliable when conducted properly.

 

 

I am pretty sure most people still don't know how much false, non-scientific, and biased information they were being fed during the COVID panic.

 

Recall that major media organizations were being paid to push certain narratives about the disease and COVID injections. They hardly investigated anything. They just repeated what they were paid to say.

 

Recall the non-existent doctors on social media who were spreading irrational fear about how deadly the disease was

 

Remember the nurse who was spinning tall-tales about how there was so much death.

 

Recall that AI chatbots were being used to push the COVID injections. In a sane world, you would talk to your doctor about it.

 

Recall that hospitals were being paid for every COVID case/death with bonuses for putting people on ventilators. In a sane world, there should have been payment for every patient they saved, no matter the treatment.

 

Recall the UN/WHO paid a lot of money for "influencers" to spread their COVID narrative. People were getting COVID information from social media influencers and believing it, for crying out loud.

 

While misinformation and biases existed during the pandemic, it is inaccurate to claim that "most people" were unaware of it. Numerous fact-checking organizations, scientific experts, and reputable news sources actively worked to debunk false information and promote accurate knowledge about COVID-19.

 

While media organizations can have biases and face challenges in reporting, it is misleading to suggest that they were solely motivated by financial incentives and deliberately spread false information. Many reputable media outlets dedicated resources to reporting accurate information, conducting investigations, and providing diverse perspectives throughout the pandemic.

 

While social media platforms did have instances of misinformation, it is an overgeneralization to claim that all doctors spreading information about the severity of the disease were non-existent or spreading irrational fear. There were genuine medical professionals on social media providing accurate information based on scientific evidence.

 

Referring to a singular nurse and categorizing their account as "tall-tales" oversimplifies the experiences and observations of healthcare professionals who were on the front lines. While individual anecdotes should be taken with caution, numerous healthcare workers witnessed the devastating impact of the disease firsthand.

 

The use of AI chatbots in disseminating information does not necessarily exclude the role of doctors. AI chatbots were employed to provide accessible information and answer common queries about COVID-19. Consulting with doctors remains essential for personalized medical advice.

 

While financial reimbursements exist for hospitals treating COVID patients, it is an oversimplification to claim that this incentivized over-reporting or inappropriate treatment decisions. The allocation of resources, including ventilators, was based on medical necessity and professional judgment.

 

While the UN and WHO collaborated with influencers to disseminate accurate COVID-19 information, it is incorrect to suggest that this automatically led to misinformation. Influencers played a role in reaching diverse audiences and conveying public health messages, with efforts focused on promoting reliable information and combating misinformation. Individuals should critically evaluate information from any source, including social media influencers. 

 

 

The most awful part about the COVID panic was the unconstitutional and illegal censorship. Instead of getting diverse opinions/ideas, and an "all hands on deck" approach, the Biden Administration censored everything except what Pfizer and Moderna wanted them to say - "the narrative". Basically, COVID is killing everyone. There is no hope except for a vaccine. Masking works. Isolation works. 

 

In the legal battle Missouri vs. Biden, the testimony is incredibly scary. Biden's lawyers are basically arguing there is no first amendment. One of the first things the Biden administration did upon taking office is to command multiple departments of the executive branch to censor EVERYTHING they didn't want to hear about COVID. No alternative treatments. No alternative policies. We learned from the Twitter files and now Facebook disclosures that they were censoring objectively true data about the COVID panic and treatments. They prevented the populace from getting potentially life-saving advice.

 

People need to be fired. People need to go to prison for a long time.

 

This critique oversimplifies and exaggerates the issue of censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic. While there were instances of content moderation, it is misleading to claim that the Biden administration censored everything except the narratives favored by pharmaceutical companies.

 

The effectiveness of masks, isolation, and vaccines is supported by scientific consensus.

 

The legal arguments made in the Missouri vs. Biden case should be evaluated based on legal merits rather than sensationalized claims of a complete erosion of the First Amendment. Calling for imprisonment based on differing opinions is an extreme and unjustifiable response.

[Mind]

The US/UK COVID response was a disaster. Leading public health figures were NOT following the science. They were dictating their chosen policy and trying to destroy anyone who disagreed. The evidence is everywhere, proven in court revelations. Real academics, (not Fauci, not Collins, not Hotez) are worried about the destruction of academic freedom due to the actions of the US public "health" leaders.

 

The possible failures/problems of lockdowns, isolation, masking were well known and well advertised in the beginning, yet US "health" leaders completely ignored the warnings.

 

One of the most bizarre responses to the COVID panic by US public health leaders - something many forget - was in regards to the BLM protests. COVID was so deadly, so transmissible, so unstoppable, that everyone had to wear masks, people were arrested for paddle-boarding alone in the ocean, businesses were shut down and destroyed, yet when the BLM protests erupted, suddenly, it was okay to gather unmasked by the thousands everywhere in the US and the world.

[gamesguru]

While I nonetheless sympathize with the Mayo Clinic doctor who was suspended due to a dissenting opinion, I would not rush to call him the "true academic". Individuals should, within reason, be permitted to freely express their opinions without fear of severance or disciplinary action. However it's also important to evaluate scientific claims based on evidence, and to consider other factors in someone's dismissal, since most employment is at-will. Cancel culture is a problem with society at large, not just in COVID circles.

While it's true that many BLM protests often featured mask-less demonstrations, it's important to differentiate between the recommendations issued by health-care officials and the enforcement policies and capabilities implemented by law enforcement. The inconsistency in enforcement strategies across different jurisdictions does not invalidate the broader health guidelines issued to slow the spread and alleviate healthcare capacity.

Governmental interventions remain a point of controversy, but the argument that they were far inferior to the "do-nothing" herd immunity approach remains speculative and has not, in my opinion, been adequately defended against objections raised in this thread (such as exhausting ICU bed capacity, or the idea that jurisdictions that imposed early stay-at-home orders may have been better able to avoid harsher business closures later).

[Daniel Cooper]

Governmental interventions remain a point of controversy, but the argument that they were far inferior to the "do-nothing" herd immunity approach remains speculative and has not, in my opinion, been adequately defended against objections raised in this thread (such as exhausting ICU bed capacity, or the idea that jurisdictions that imposed early stay-at-home orders may have been better able to avoid harsher business closures later).

 

We do not yet know the final disposition on how effective or not government interventions were at this point. It will probably take several years for the passions on both sides to cool, and for enough time to have lapsed for there not to be so much on the line in terms of reputations and careers for positions and decisions made during the pandemic. 

 

This is a pretty normal situation. Often times it takes quite a while to have enough distance from an event and for the prominent people that shaped it to have moved on for there to be a really open and honest evaluation. Perhaps a decade or more.

 

But, while we don't have a final disposition, I think we can say that some of the measures were certainly not as effective as they were touted at the time or without negative consequences which were glossed over or minimized. 

 

Masks (as implemented) were something of a bust based on the evidence we have now. Yes better masks might have performed better, but we can only evaluate things as they actually occurred and they were no where near as effective as promised.

 

The vaccines were promised to be well into the high 90% effective range and to last a year or more. That also turned out not to be true. And there were some significant side effects for some people. That is always the case with any vaccine but for this one there was an effort to underplay those side effects to the public.

 

Remote schooling was touted as being so good that it might well become the "new norm". We now know from test scores and children with socialization issues that it had some pretty significant downsides and you really don't hear anyone talking about it as the wave of the future any more.

 

But, of course the government is made of people and people make mistakes. So that there would be problems with some of the government's response to covid was a forgone conclusion. No one should expect perfection, particularly out of the government.

 

There were however a few things that really stuck in some people's craw that were legitimate complaints.

 

The inequitable application of lockdowns and restrictions. Walmarts were generally allowed to remain open, mom and pop stores and churches often not. To the point where one jurisdiction banned church services held in a large parking lot where people remained in their cars and it was broadcast over short range FM radio. 

 

There were the scenes of utter craziness, like the police in California going out and arresting a lone surfer out in the waves where he had a 0% chance of transmitting anything.

 

Then there was the dissembling and in some cases outright deception by government officials. Fauci's lieutenants are telling him "this virus looks potentially engineered" and the changes it displayed don't look like something that would evolve naturally. Meanwhile Fauci is telling the public that the idea that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab was a ridiculous conspiracy theory and that it's origin was an absolutely natural event at the now discounted wet market.

 

People are generally pretty accepting of mistakes, but they really don't like being lied to.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 23 June 2023 - 06:00 PM.

[Mind]

While I nonetheless sympathize with the Mayo Clinic doctor who was suspended due to a dissenting opinion, I would not rush to call him the "true academic". Individuals should, within reason, be permitted to freely express their opinions without fear of severance or disciplinary action. However it's also important to evaluate scientific claims based on evidence, and to consider other factors in someone's dismissal, since most employment is at-will. Cancel culture is a problem with society at large, not just in COVID circles.

While it's true that many BLM protests often featured mask-less demonstrations, it's important to differentiate between the recommendations issued by health-care officials and the enforcement policies and capabilities implemented by law enforcement. The inconsistency in enforcement strategies across different jurisdictions does not invalidate the broader health guidelines issued to slow the spread and alleviate healthcare capacity.

Governmental interventions remain a point of controversy, but the argument that they were far inferior to the "do-nothing" herd immunity approach remains speculative and has not, in my opinion, been adequately defended against objections raised in this thread (such as exhausting ICU bed capacity, or the idea that jurisdictions that imposed early stay-at-home orders may have been better able to avoid harsher business closures later).

 

Sweden. Least amount of COVID restrictions in the EU. Now they have the lowest excess mortality in the EU over the last 3 years. The US/UK led COVID panic response was a total failure.

 

Enforcement? I would say you have a point here, but when the exact same public health leaders that were persecuting everyone else who contested the pandemic measures, suddenly went on TV and declared it was perfectly fine to protest with BLM - no isolation, no masks, no social distancing - that is unbelievable hypocrisy. It clearly showed the pandemic measures were worthless and basically for theatre. 

[Mind]

Real journalists are exposing the corruption and incompetence of the US/UK COVID response, while NYT, AP, ABC, CBS, NPR, continue to essentially lie to the public.

[Mind]

It is sad that we have to rely on comedians to point out the proven lies of US/UK public" health" officials. Walensky and Fauci knew that there were breakthrough infections by tyhe thousands in the early rollout of the COVID injections - yet they went on TV and said the injections were 100% "safe and effective". Why are more people NOT upset about this? Why does national media in the US continue to ignore this gross unethical behavior? Probably because they were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to promote the injections (fact!).

 

Fauci's assistant was even using non-government email and alternate communication to avoid future FOIA requests!

[Mind]

New York spent $250 million on a tyrannical APP that everyone was supposed to use. Now they are getting rid of it - maybe because so many people have fled NYC (and Chicago, and Los Angeles, and Washington DC due to the dictatorial anti-freedom useless AND counterproductive COVID panic measures).

 

The COVID panic response from most governments was so incompetent and disastrous that no one wants to even talk about it publicly, in order to improve things for the future.

 

 

[Florin]

In this thread (as in a lot of places during the pandemic), there's been some undeserved expert worship that boils down to "but you're not an expert." A counterpoint would be "if an expert tells you to jump off a cliff to cure a headache, would you jump?" In other words, if an expert (or even all experts) tells you something that's clearly dumb, should you believe it?

 

The experts got it wrong on masks, respirators, and lockdowns, and you didn't need any fancy expertise for this to have been obvious. A lot of these so-called experts still haven't figured it out.

[Mind]

In this thread (as in a lot of places during the pandemic), there's been some undeserved expert worship that boils down to "but you're not an expert." A counterpoint would be "if an expert tells you to jump off a cliff to cure a headache, would you jump?" In other words, if an expert (or even all experts) tells you something that's clearly dumb, should you believe it?

 

The experts got it wrong on masks, respirators, and lockdowns, and you didn't need any fancy expertise for this to have been obvious. A lot of these so-called experts still haven't figured it out.

 

 

This is true. During the pandemic I was told on TV, and by the experts that it would only take "2 weeks to slow the spread", that if most people wore masks "the pandemic would be over", and that the COVID injections were "nearly 100% safe and effective".

 

The experts were wrong on every single issue. I listened, but then I observed what was happening around me. Everyone at my workplace got COVID. Everyone who wore masks, everyone who got the injection, everyone who washed their hands religiously and disinfected everything around them. They ALL got COVID.

 

We all have to defer to experts in most areas of life. It is okay for experts to be wrong. However, it is NOT okay for them to lie about it. It is NOT okay for them to NOT admit that there were failures. It is NOT okay for them to keep pushing for the same failed policies.

Edited by Mind, 02 July 2023 - 03:58 PM.

[Mind]

I am unsure if most people realize how bad the COVID panic response was by the UK/US governments. It couldn't have been more incompetent, anti-science, ineffective, and politicized.

 

As documented prolifically in this thread, it has been proven that public health officials lied multiple times and hid data. Here is another lie that is right out in the open for everyone to see: Dr. Birx, in her memoir, states quite plainly that the "2 weeks to slow the spread" was not the true plan/response. She says it was just a test to get more restrictions later, which is exactly what happened.

 

 

 

 

[Mind]

Take another good look at Carl Sagan's warning. It is extremely dangerous if we cannot question "the science" or the policy-makers.

 

Yet what did we get during the COVID panic - a tyrannical takedown of any alternative voices. Questions were squashed. Dissenters lost their jobs. Real data about cases/deaths were censored. People were constantly threatened if they didn't go along with the "COVID narrative".

 

A lot of people lost their lives and their livelihoods because of the COVID dictatorship. It was an awful thing to see, yet the same "COVID dictators" are still in positions of power. No one has been prosecuted or fired.

 

Sorry Carl, but we are losing our free and rational society.

Edited by Mind, 15 July 2023 - 05:32 PM.

[Hip]

As documented prolifically in this thread, it has been proven that public health officials lied multiple times and hid data.  

 

You stated that the CDC and FDA lied, but when I asked for examples, you were unable to provide any.

[Hip]

I am unsure if most people realize how bad the COVID panic response was by the UK/US governments. It couldn't have been more incompetent, anti-science, ineffective, and politicized.

 

It's totally anti-science to claim, as you do, that the COVID vaccines are not actually vaccines. That shows complete lack of understanding of what a vaccines are, and how they work. 

 

In order to criticise science, one first needs to start on a scientific footing themselves. 

Edited by Hip, 15 July 2023 - 05:58 PM.

[gamesguru]

You stated that the CDC and FDA lied, but when I asked for examples, you were unable to provide any.

 

I think by "lied" he means "changed their mind." I can sympathize with the desire for consistent narratives. But science doesn't always work that way. Scientists change their minds in response to evolving data, which provides ammo in the minds of critics.

 

There is also a tendencies for agencies to put a positive spin on things, and not emphasize the negatives. But this is a human tendency in all circles, and it needs to be evaluated for its relative degree of severity before claiming malice or fraud.

 

Let's just all take a moment to remember when President Trump mocked questions about masks and the supply chain, and claimed this was no more dangerous than the flu.

 

But later when hospitals were overrun, he went on to recommend injecting bleach as a viable treatment for them. And when he got COVID he received groundbreaking treatments of his own, and still looked like he was about to pass out on live TV.

 

I think if we're looking for hypocritical dishonesty, reckless behavior, and a downright feeble attempt to combat the pandemic... the Trump Administration provides ample leads for any inquiring mind.

[Hip]

I think by "lied" he means "changed their mind." I can sympathize with the desire for consistent narratives. But science doesn't always work that way. Scientists change their minds in response to evolving data, which provides ammo in the minds of critics.

 

You often find the strongest critics of science know least about how science works.

 

In particular, many don't understand how scientific assertions are often probabilistic, based on the best evidence at the time, and as new evidence comes in, those assertions may change and evolve.

 

In fact, everyday life often works on the same principle: people's opinions on any subject are usually based on the best evidence at the time, but those opinions change when new info comes in.

Edited by Hip, 15 July 2023 - 06:07 PM.