https://twitter.com/NeoliberalSnow/status/1485689427779375110
Real men make informed personal decisions where they’ll defecate, they’re not listening to Big Plumbing. If you have a problem with people defecating in the street and are so afraid of cholera, simply stay at home and drink that feces-free water that is allegedly good for you. Freedom.
I think these are very conservative estimates for the numbers of lives saved by various COVID measures, but here goes:
Masks: 36-billion
Lockdowns: 71-trillion
Vaccinations: Eleventy-gazillion
I hope all of you who question anything think very carefully about the risk of doing so, next time you’re told what to think.
To be fair … most kids get out of booster seats between the ages of 7-10
Why would researchers from Johns Hopkins publish something that is so shoddy some random guy on the internet can tear it apart. What is their motivation? Surely they aren’t some right-wing, Trumpers working together at Johns Hopkins.
But they are still suckling on mommy’s tit until 36, 
That report alleges that lockdowns (basically quarantine for most of us) resulted in nearly no decrease in deaths from an infectious, transmissible virus. Does that make sense to you?
It says that if the lockdowns are done at the perfect time in the beginning, they work, but if there is a delay, they are useless. That makes sense to me. This is a dynamic situation. Just because things seem to make sense, doesn’t mean they are right. Like cloth masks. They made sense until they didn’t.
Trumpers, no, conservative yes.
Anyone who’s written an actual scientific paper, did some sampling/data preparation/regression analysis could have teared it down.
Let’s dispel a myth that this was written by “researchers”. It’s a “literary review” / “report” (again, not a study) written by an old school libertarian with an agenda claiming to dabble in meta analysis, without needing to submit to independent verification. It’s more of an (in my opinion unfounded) opinion piece masquerading as a scientific paper to fool the uninformed. And it seems to be working.
Steve Hanke, the John Hopkins professor who coauthored the “literary review” is a fellow at Cato Institute. He’s been writing against lockdowns from the very start. He’s of course entitled to his opinion, but it’s a problem when he’s trying to pass his opions as “research”. It’s not.
Who would have thought that this “researcher” would a year and a half later determine through an that lockdowns don’t work?
https://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/1242999713743491074
And 99,999% people will read the headlines on Twitter how “researchers” (not researchers) in a “study” (not a study) calculated that lockdowns don’t work, while the actual statisticians are aghast at the shoddy cherry picking and frankly poor math to make the op-ed sound scientific.
If lockdowns don’t work, should you go out like normal while sick with COVID? Or should you quarantine yourself?
Is it more difficult to spread COVID if you aren’t around others?
Lockdowns and going out while having any sickness are two completely different things
If I have the flu I don’t go out…I Stay home as anyone should
But during lockdowns, everything was shut down even the beaches in florida were closed
You agree that sick people quarantining mitigates/stops infectious spread. I too agree. Pretty basic stuff that’s been known for centuries to stop/slow infectious diseases.
So how did EVERYONE quarantining (lockdown mandates) not result in mitigating the spread and deaths as this article claims?
This is regardless of when you think the economic cost of lockdowns outweighs the human cost of infections, or what places should/not have been closed. The carte blanche approach was taken because of the (at the time, perceived) risk of not being cautious enough. And this article is now claiming a carte blanche quarantine/lockdown did nothing… So why personally quarantine while sick?
He’s not just “some random guy on the internet;” he’s European.
I agree sick or infectious people…but not the healthy or the non-infectious people
again, risk assessment
They will always make sense. #FearMuzzles4ever
The only way to stop the oNexticon Variant will be for those still playing pandemic to wear airtight masks until someone else removes them.
And the survey says:
So leftists have to believe it too:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-hopkins-study-concludes-covid-lockdown-policies-should-be-rejected/vi-AATpPVD
What we all instinctively knew. How many millions of lives have been destroyed because of this asshat policy. The narrative continues to fail.
Let me get this strait. The largest meta analysis done on the topic shows lockdowns did more harm than good and you don’t want to believe it based on a ‘gut feeling’ that it may not sound right? What about ‘the science’? This was no small study.
Nope. You believe lies. You believe in the spirit of lockdowns, not the reality of them. Sure, if everybody stays in place and never go out ever, then nothing spreads, but in reality, as long as even 1% go out for survival goods and services, lockdowns don’t work. They are a fail.
Uh, what? What the hell does this have to do with lockdowns, vaccines, masks or any other such horseshit?
Does it bother you at all that you are wrong about virtually everything you have said here, or are you just too arrogant to admit it in the face of overwhelming evidence? Humility can go a long way toward credibility.
Everything you said here is absolutely incorrect according to scientific meta analysis. I have no hope you will reconsider. I think people take comfort in the filth of their own lies, but everything you said here is 100% verifiably incorrect.
What is more correct is the collateral effect of lockdowns produced more death as a result of the strain of lockdowns, than covid would have or could have killed. I supposed you are pleased these people are dead, just so you can feel virtuous?
Early on, we didn’t fully understand the risk, so policy erred on the side of caution. But I generally agree with the above… The problem was/is asymptomatic infectious people.
However, my point is that sick and infectious people quarantined (along with everyone else) and these economists say there was no benefit in terms of COVID deaths (and infections). So, why quarantine at all when sick if it apparently has no benefit?
And again, you’re wrong. The quarantine didn’t, and won’t work. The number of ‘excess deaths’ due to quarantines far outweigh the risk of getting covid. They damn sure didn’t help me, I got the shots, I haven’t been out much because I work from home and I got the kung flu anyway.
These draconian measures do not work for what the powers that be, say they are for. This is verifiable. We have the numbers. The mandates don’t work, the mask mandates don’t work, the quarantines don’t work. And along with not working, they cause a great deal more harm than they helped.
So it begs the question, if this shit does not work and that is verifiable, why do they persist? Well it’s not because of covid, because it doesn’t work for covid.
What does it do? It hurts people, it makes them desperate, it hurts the economy and drives up inflation.
So if the mandates don’t work for what they are intended for, why do they persist? It’s because our ‘dear leaders’ are evil. They want the new world order, a cast system and a class based system.
Why do companies go woke? Because they have a EGS score that is directly related to their access to ETF’s. And without access to ETF, they cannot do business.